Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

System DSLRs?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:43:19 AM

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

It would seem that traditional system gear, with interchangeable
everything, is now passe. The Nikon F6 is the first F series Nikon
without an interchangeable finder. Canon hasn't had such a thing in
their EOS series at all, AFAIK.

And I'm still finding occasion to swap finders on my LX. Am I weird or
what? Why aren't interchangeable finders being offered now?

I drag out my old G2 to do some small work using close-up mode, and the
swivel LCD makes this really convenient. Couldn't do that with a DSLR.
So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
Technology reasons? What?

This is the place for opinions: anybody got a thought about this?

Will D.

More about : system dslrs

Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:43:20 AM

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

Will D. wrote:
> It would seem that traditional system gear, with interchangeable
> everything, is now passe. The Nikon F6 is the first F series Nikon
> without an interchangeable finder. Canon hasn't had such a thing in
> their EOS series at all, AFAIK.

A few like Canon 1Ds, IDs Mark-II, and Minolta Maxxum 7D offer
interchangeable focussing screens but no interchangeable viewfinders.
- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:51:05 AM

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

I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro, sport, and
copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would be a
major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a user. My
guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work, or
dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.

As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens that
swivel like the screens on video cameras.

Walt

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com...
> It would seem that traditional system gear, with interchangeable
> everything, is now passe. The Nikon F6 is the first F series Nikon
> without an interchangeable finder. Canon hasn't had such a thing in
> their EOS series at all, AFAIK.
>
> And I'm still finding occasion to swap finders on my LX. Am I weird or
> what? Why aren't interchangeable finders being offered now?
>
> I drag out my old G2 to do some small work using close-up mode, and the
> swivel LCD makes this really convenient. Couldn't do that with a DSLR.
> So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
> Technology reasons? What?
>
> This is the place for opinions: anybody got a thought about this?
>
> Will D.
>
>
Related resources
January 13, 2005 1:09:46 PM

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

The Canon Angle Finder 3 (which also fits Nikons) gives you almost as much
versatility as a "stovepipe" finder. But I wish you could change the
focusing screen in a Canon DSLR. For scientific work, we often really do
need to focus manually. I think the industry has forgotten that we don't
always autofocus.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 3:35:09 PM

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

Walt Hanks wrote:

> I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro, sport, and
> copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would be a
> major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a user. My
> guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work, or
> dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.
>
> As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens that
> swivel like the screens on video cameras.

Since the shutter is closed and the mirror is down, there would need to be a
preview mode that raises the mirror and opens the shutter. I don't know if any
DSLR's have this, but in any case the detail available in the optical viewfinder
is much better than that of the LCD monitor.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:44:11 PM

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

Coz you can buy a right angle view finder attachment.

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com...
> It would seem that traditional system gear, with interchangeable
> everything, is now passe. The Nikon F6 is the first F series Nikon
> without an interchangeable finder. Canon hasn't had such a thing in
> their EOS series at all, AFAIK.
>
> And I'm still finding occasion to swap finders on my LX. Am I weird or
> what? Why aren't interchangeable finders being offered now?
>
> I drag out my old G2 to do some small work using close-up mode, and the
> swivel LCD makes this really convenient. Couldn't do that with a DSLR.
> So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
> Technology reasons? What?
>
> This is the place for opinions: anybody got a thought about this?
>
> Will D.
>
>
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 6:44:12 PM

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

"Canongirly" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:cs6508$om9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Coz you can buy a right angle view finder attachment.
>

But that still requires bending down very close to the camera when shooting
at ground level. The old folding hood that Nikon used to offer allowed you
to at least verify composition from as much as a foot or two away, depending
upon the lighting.

Walt
January 13, 2005 6:44:12 PM

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

"Canongirly" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:cs6508$om9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Coz you can buy a right angle view finder attachment.

Here are particulars of Canon's, which fits many non-Canon SLRs too:
http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_i...

It's still not as bright as the Nikon DW-4 "stovepipe," though.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 8:43:59 PM

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

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xfednalvOO1KAXvcRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "Canongirly" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> news:cs6508$om9$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Coz you can buy a right angle view finder attachment.
>>
>
> But that still requires bending down very close to the camera when
> shooting at ground level. The old folding hood that Nikon used to offer
> allowed you to at least verify composition from as much as a foot or two
> away, depending upon the lighting.
>
> Walt
don't buy one then
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:44:25 AM

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

On 2005-01-13, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Walt Hanks wrote:
>
>> I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro, sport, and
>> copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would be a
>> major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a user. My
>> guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work, or
>> dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.
>>
>> As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens that
>> swivel like the screens on video cameras.
>
> Since the shutter is closed and the mirror is down, there would need to be a
> preview mode that raises the mirror and opens the shutter. I don't know if any
> DSLR's have this, but in any case the detail available in the optical viewfinder
> is much better than that of the LCD monitor.

AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.

I Googled on this and didn't get any specific references to DSLRs, but
not a few Nikon fans are upset about the F6. Most references were for
roll film rigs, so Walt's probably got it right there.

Now, I *think* the 20D has mirror lockup, so the principal mechanism is
in place, pop open the shutter and pipe the image to the LCD (which
would be swivelable ala Canon's G series). Now what? Well, presumably
the shutter would close briefly, the pipe from the sensor would be
rerouted to the taking circuits, the shutter would fire, the pipe
rerouted once again to the LCD and the shutter would open again. Not
too hard, I would think. Of course, that would hike shutter usage
significantly, I guess, but blackout time would be negligable compared
to the blackout time already needed for storage (if the G series is any
example).

One thing I can think of against IF is weatherproofing, although I'm not
convinced that's significant. The LX is not waterproof, but I've never
had the finder leak, and it's seen it's share of rain.

Guess it's a moot question, though. Too bad for small format shooters,
but looks like pro demand no longer exists. Now, for medium format
digital backs.... nah, not here. ;) 

Will D.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:44:26 AM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2005-01-13, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> Walt Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro, sport,
>>> and
>>> copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would be
>>> a
>>> major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a user.
>>> My
>>> guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work,
>>> or
>>> dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.
>>>
>>> As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens
>>> that
>>> swivel like the screens on video cameras.
>>
>> Since the shutter is closed and the mirror is down, there would need to
>> be a
>> preview mode that raises the mirror and opens the shutter. I don't know
>> if any
>> DSLR's have this, but in any case the detail available in the optical
>> viewfinder
>> is much better than that of the LCD monitor.
>
> AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.
>
> I Googled on this and didn't get any specific references to DSLRs, but
> not a few Nikon fans are upset about the F6. Most references were for
> roll film rigs, so Walt's probably got it right there.
>
> Now, I *think* the 20D has mirror lockup, so the principal mechanism is
> in place, pop open the shutter and pipe the image to the LCD (which
> would be swivelable ala Canon's G series). Now what? Well, presumably
> the shutter would close briefly, the pipe from the sensor would be
> rerouted to the taking circuits, the shutter would fire, the pipe
> rerouted once again to the LCD and the shutter would open again. Not
> too hard, I would think. Of course, that would hike shutter usage
> significantly, I guess, but blackout time would be negligable compared
> to the blackout time already needed for storage (if the G series is any
> example).
>
<snipped>
> Will D.
>

It wouldn't just hike shutter usage, but I'd think shutter lag would
increase somewhat, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
January 14, 2005 12:44:26 AM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...

> AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.

Let's invent the non-SLR DSLR. Use the same interchangeable lenses and
autofocusing mechanism, but use the LCD as a continuous viewfinder, the way
it's done on non-SLR digital cameras. No mirror or eyepiece would then be
needed. For fine focusing, you should be able to electronically enlarge the
LCD image.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:44:27 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WmFFd.101$ru.19@fed1read07...
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2005-01-13, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> Walt Hanks wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro, sport,
>>>> and
>>>> copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would
>>>> be a
>>>> major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a
>>>> user. My
>>>> guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work,
>>>> or
>>>> dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.
>>>>
>>>> As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens
>>>> that
>>>> swivel like the screens on video cameras.
>>>
>>> Since the shutter is closed and the mirror is down, there would need to
>>> be a
>>> preview mode that raises the mirror and opens the shutter. I don't know
>>> if any
>>> DSLR's have this, but in any case the detail available in the optical
>>> viewfinder
>>> is much better than that of the LCD monitor.
>>
>> AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.
>>
>> I Googled on this and didn't get any specific references to DSLRs, but
>> not a few Nikon fans are upset about the F6. Most references were for
>> roll film rigs, so Walt's probably got it right there.
>>
>> Now, I *think* the 20D has mirror lockup, so the principal mechanism is
>> in place, pop open the shutter and pipe the image to the LCD (which
>> would be swivelable ala Canon's G series). Now what? Well, presumably
>> the shutter would close briefly, the pipe from the sensor would be
>> rerouted to the taking circuits, the shutter would fire, the pipe
>> rerouted once again to the LCD and the shutter would open again. Not
>> too hard, I would think. Of course, that would hike shutter usage
>> significantly, I guess, but blackout time would be negligable compared
>> to the blackout time already needed for storage (if the G series is any
>> example).
>>
> <snipped>
>> Will D.
>>
>
> It wouldn't just hike shutter usage, but I'd think shutter lag would
> increase somewhat, too.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>

Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the optical
viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of electronics, but
if we're wishing for the moon here ...

Walt
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:44:28 AM

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

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5dqdnQPEXdlxsHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:WmFFd.101$ru.19@fed1read07...
>> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
>> news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...
>>> On 2005-01-13, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> Walt Hanks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm with you Will. I need my various finders on my F for macro,
>>>>> sport, and
>>>>> copy work. If I were in the market for a new film camera, that would
>>>>> be a
>>>>> major point against the F6. I guess we are just not that common a
>>>>> user. My
>>>>> guess is that people are either using medium format now for that work,
>>>>> or
>>>>> dragging out their old bodies, like you and I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as DSLRs go, the solution seems obvious. Give them lcd screens
>>>>> that
>>>>> swivel like the screens on video cameras.
>>>>
>>>> Since the shutter is closed and the mirror is down, there would need to
>>>> be a
>>>> preview mode that raises the mirror and opens the shutter. I don't
>>>> know if any
>>>> DSLR's have this, but in any case the detail available in the optical
>>>> viewfinder
>>>> is much better than that of the LCD monitor.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.
>>>
>>> I Googled on this and didn't get any specific references to DSLRs, but
>>> not a few Nikon fans are upset about the F6. Most references were for
>>> roll film rigs, so Walt's probably got it right there.
>>>
>>> Now, I *think* the 20D has mirror lockup, so the principal mechanism is
>>> in place, pop open the shutter and pipe the image to the LCD (which
>>> would be swivelable ala Canon's G series). Now what? Well, presumably
>>> the shutter would close briefly, the pipe from the sensor would be
>>> rerouted to the taking circuits, the shutter would fire, the pipe
>>> rerouted once again to the LCD and the shutter would open again. Not
>>> too hard, I would think. Of course, that would hike shutter usage
>>> significantly, I guess, but blackout time would be negligable compared
>>> to the blackout time already needed for storage (if the G series is any
>>> example).
>>>
>> <snipped>
>>> Will D.
>>>
>>
>> It wouldn't just hike shutter usage, but I'd think shutter lag would
>> increase somewhat, too.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>
> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the optical
> viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of electronics, but
> if we're wishing for the moon here ...
>
> Walt
>
I don't see why it couldn't, but where would you put the sensor?
One thing I'm surprised not to have seen explored is a pellicle mirror
arrangement. Yes, you lose some light, a full stop, if I remember
correctly, but, if the mirror is semitransparent, it doesn't have to move,
leaving no blackout when the shutter is tripped, light can get to the sensor
all of the time to provide live preview, and shutter response is improve
slightly, since we don't have to wait for the mirror to get the heck out of
the way. Canon had such an arrangement on their 1n RS and a predecessor,
the model name of which I can't remember.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:32:45 AM

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

In article <10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com>,
"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:

> So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
> Technology reasons? What?

Dust. a fold-up finder will not immediately get lots of dust on the
sensor, but in reality it will speed up dust contamination considerably.
The top of the mirror-box really needs to be closed and sealed, with
digital.

There is one digital body with interchangeable finders, the Kodak DCS
760. (and similar 660) It is based on a standard F5 and even still has
the F5 logo.

Lourens.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 5:56:51 AM

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

On 2005-01-13, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> In article <10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
>
>> So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
>> Technology reasons? What?
>
> Dust. a fold-up finder will not immediately get lots of dust on the
> sensor, but in reality it will speed up dust contamination considerably.
> The top of the mirror-box really needs to be closed and sealed, with
> digital.

Interesting. This will let in more dust than lens changes?

When I change finders, I almost always do so inside an enclosed space,
like a house or car, unlike lens changes which take place in the field.
Changing finders is done in preparation for some task, not in response
to a situation, as in lens changes. But maybe that's just me. Don't
know.

> There is one digital body with interchangeable finders, the Kodak DCS
> 760. (and similar 660) It is based on a standard F5 and even still has
> the F5 logo.

Completely missed that one!

Discontinued now. Apparently not all that well liked, I guess.

I'd ask about opinions of the F5, but that's not topical here, so I
won't. Can't take responsibility for any answers that might appear,
though ;) 

Will D.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:09:15 AM

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

Walt Hanks wrote:
> "mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in message
> news:41e694b3@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> > The Canon Angle Finder 3 (which also fits Nikons) gives you almost
as much
> > versatility as a "stovepipe" finder. But I wish you could change
the
> > focusing screen in a Canon DSLR. For scientific work, we often
really do
> > need to focus manually. I think the industry has forgotten that we
don't
> > always autofocus.

Here's another product that might be of help for manual focus. The
Canon magnifier S with Adapter S. Sells for $50-$100 depending on the
auction on eBay. It fits on your viewfinder and gives you a 2.5x
magnification of the centre of the viewfinder.

Here's how to fit it onto a Canon 10D or a 300D:
http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2003/07/06-1.html

One such item being currently auctioned on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item...

----snip begin-------------
The Magnifier S magnifies the center of the viewfinder image by 2.5X to
aid in critical focusing as in macro photography.

For rectangular viewfinders,the magnifier S screws into the Adaptor S
which is then attached to the viewfinder.The adapter is hinged to allow
the magnifier to swing upward out of the way.
----snip end-------------

HTH,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:51:29 AM

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

"mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in message
news:41e694b3@mustang.speedfactory.net...
> The Canon Angle Finder 3 (which also fits Nikons) gives you almost as much
> versatility as a "stovepipe" finder. But I wish you could change the
> focusing screen in a Canon DSLR. For scientific work, we often really do
> need to focus manually. I think the industry has forgotten that we don't
> always autofocus.
>
>

Good tip. Thanks!

Walt
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 12:59:14 PM

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

"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
news:10ued7jjic935b2@corp.supernews.com...
> On 2005-01-13, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>> In article <10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
> Interesting. This will let in more dust than lens changes?
>
> When I change finders, I almost always do so inside an enclosed space,
> like a house or car,

And those two enviroments are likely to have as many dust particles floating
around them (being enclosed) as a beach or a desert.

> unlike lens changes which take place in the field.

No, just doubling your chances.

> Changing finders is done in preparation for some task, not in response
> to a situation, as in lens changes. But maybe that's just me. Don't
> know.

If it bothers you that much don't buy one.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 2:19:03 PM

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

mc wrote:
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.
>
> Let's invent the non-SLR DSLR. Use the same interchangeable lenses
and
> autofocusing mechanism, but use the LCD as a continuous viewfinder,
the way
> it's done on non-SLR digital cameras. No mirror or eyepiece would
then be
> needed. For fine focusing, you should be able to electronically
enlarge the
> LCD image.

Try this test. Goto a shop, take a P&S and a dSLR. Peek thru the
optical viewfinder of the dSLR first and then thru the EVF of the P&S.
Let us know if you still want an EVF on a dSLR. I did the test above
and never want to see through an EVF again.

Yes, I just might want a P&S with a optical viewfinder TTL for
portability.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:13:00 PM

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

"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in
news:5dqdnQPEXdlxsHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com:

> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the
> optical viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of
> electronics, but if we're wishing for the moon here ...

Yes - there are three reasons.

1. If you put a sensor there, then you will not
have any optical view finder any more.

2. Then you need another sensor - and that costs
both money, space and power.

3. The main reason for LCD preview is gone; that
you actually use the same sensor, e.g. is one
of the amjor benefits with focussing on the sensor
theat you don't need so extreme accuracy in
the build of the camera.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:15:00 PM

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

"mc" <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote in
news:41e6fa36$1@mustang.speedfactory.net:

> Let's invent the non-SLR DSLR. Use the same interchangeable lenses
> and autofocusing mechanism, but use the LCD as a continuous
> viewfinder, the way it's done on non-SLR digital cameras. No mirror
> or eyepiece would then be needed. For fine focusing, you should be
> able to electronically enlarge the LCD image.
>

They exist - the are called ZLR.

Unfortunately - electronic view finders have problems,
both with image quality and with delay. Nothing that
even come close to a real SLR.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:38:10 PM

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

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:22:51 -0500, mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:
>
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10udqtp21717p7c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> AFAIK, all DSLRs only use the LCD for review, not preview.
>
> Let's invent the non-SLR DSLR.

Epson RD-1?

I had a similar thought. I bought a DSLR for the interchangeable
lenses and the better sensor. The optical viewfinder is nice, but
I'm not sure it's worth the weight and cost to me. (TO ME!)

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:10:48 AM

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

mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:

> Let's invent the non-SLR DSLR. Use the same interchangeable lenses and
> autofocusing mechanism, but use the LCD as a continuous viewfinder, the way
> it's done on non-SLR digital cameras. No mirror or eyepiece would then be
> needed. For fine focusing, you should be able to electronically enlarge the
> LCD image.

Well, I can't imagine why such a thing would be useful or good, but I guess
if there is a market, it will come...

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:16:15 AM

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

In article <10ued7jjic935b2@corp.supernews.com>,
"Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:

> On 2005-01-13, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> > In article <10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
> >
> >> So why aren't DSLRs be offered with interchangeable finders? No demand?
> >> Technology reasons? What?
> >
> > Dust. a fold-up finder will not immediately get lots of dust on the
> > sensor, but in reality it will speed up dust contamination considerably.
> > The top of the mirror-box really needs to be closed and sealed, with
> > digital.
>
> Interesting. This will let in more dust than lens changes?

I use my Rolleiflex system a lot, and one thing I know about using a
fold-up finder is that your viewfinder can get very dusty very quickly.
Now of course that doesn't mean the dust is on the CCD immediately, but
I think this must be the reason. I noticed with my Nikon F4 the screen
also gathered more dust than with other bodies, and some of that dust
will end up in the mirror box somewhere.

> When I change finders, I almost always do so inside an enclosed space,
> like a house or car, unlike lens changes which take place in the field.
> Changing finders is done in preparation for some task, not in response
> to a situation, as in lens changes. But maybe that's just me. Don't
> know.

I usually swap finders on location... but that does mean mostly indoors.
And as far as dust is concerned, a fold-up finder is about the same as
no finder at all...

> > There is one digital body with interchangeable finders, the Kodak DCS
> > 760. (and similar 660) It is based on a standard F5 and even still has
> > the F5 logo.
>
> Completely missed that one!
>
> Discontinued now. Apparently not all that well liked, I guess.

It was very expensive when new ($20.000?) but is still reasonably
up-to-date in specs. (1.3 crop-factor and 6MP)

;-)
Lourens
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:40:15 AM

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

On 2005-01-14, Canongirly <me@me.com> wrote:
>
> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:10ued7jjic935b2@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 2005-01-13, Lourens Smak <smak@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>>> In article <10ucd57tfba9p50@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> "Will D." <willd@no.spam> wrote:
>> Interesting. This will let in more dust than lens changes?
>>
>> When I change finders, I almost always do so inside an enclosed space,
>> like a house or car,
>
> And those two enviroments are likely to have as many dust particles floating
> around them (being enclosed) as a beach or a desert.

Well, noting the behavior of dust motes in a ray of sunlight when
indoors, they sort just hang there. As long as no serious movement in
the area, they continue to hang there. Same sort of drill as hanging
wet negs in a darkroom without an enclosed film drier; hang the negs,
move slowly out of the darkroom and slowly close the door. Less dust on
negs.

>> unlike lens changes which take place in the field.
>
> No, just doubling your chances.

Given the lack of moving air to transport them into the camera, probably
not double, though perhaps some increase.

>> Changing finders is done in preparation for some task, not in response
>> to a situation, as in lens changes. But maybe that's just me. Don't
>> know.
>
> If it bothers you that much don't buy one.

?

Will D.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 10:45:12 PM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:5dqdnQPEXdlxsHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com:

>> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the
>> optical viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of
>> electronics, but if we're wishing for the moon here ...

> Yes - there are three reasons.

> 1. If you put a sensor there, then you will not
> have any optical view finder any more.

- You could use a 50% mirror.
PRO: - can use optical view finder and LCD at the same time
CON: - Loose 1 stop permanently to both
- extra mirror

- You could put a small sensor directly behind the AF sensors
(they already use a halfmirror to feed them).
PRO: - can use optical view finder and LCD at the same time
CON: - sharpness (the LCD won't have that many pixels either,
though)
- blind spots due to AF sensors?
- support structure etc, of AF sensors in the way


- You could use a swinging a mirror between optical view
finder and sensor
PRO: - no compromises regarding sharpness & brightness.
CON: - extra mirror (swingable!)
- can only use either-or


- You could put a lens + sensor *onto* the optical view finder
PRO: - can be done after-market
CON: - can only use either-or --- and you need to move the
sensor physically out of the way (flipping up may be
bad if you mounted a flash ...)
- no integrated LCD: where to mount it?

> 2. Then you need another sensor - and that costs
> both money, space and power.

Yes, that'll always be a problem, though the LCD (backlight!)
will eat much more power than the sensor.

But if you want a swivel design (and I could have used one a few
times!), or even want to clamp the LCD on your tripod, or have
it fixed in front of your eyes while you move the camera ...

> 3. The main reason for LCD preview is gone; that
> you actually use the same sensor, e.g. is one
> of the amjor benefits with focussing on the sensor
> theat you don't need so extreme accuracy in
> the build of the camera.

I thought the reason was one of:
- cannot fit a proper, usable viewfinder on such a small camera
(and it's not full-frame, if you have one)
- you need an LCD for post-viewing anyway
- svivel/tilt designs give you much more flexibility (overhead,
from the chest (lookig down on the screen), ...)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:15:32 AM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:o qa5c2-
ep2.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

>> 3. The main reason for LCD preview is gone; that
>> you actually use the same sensor, e.g. is one
>> of the amjor benefits with focussing on the sensor
>> theat you don't need so extreme accuracy in
>> the build of the camera.
>
> I thought the reason was one of:
> - cannot fit a proper, usable viewfinder on such a small camera
> (and it's not full-frame, if you have one)
> - you need an LCD for post-viewing anyway
> - svivel/tilt designs give you much more flexibility (overhead,
> from the chest (lookig down on the screen), ...)

I should have added IMHO above.

To focus on the actual sensor is a HUGE benefit IMHO.
Then you are sure that what you see in focus actually
is in focus. If you have some separate focussing means,
then you have to make the camera with very small tolerances.
That costs money - and it is not robust. You should
really send your camera for callibrating now and then,
at least when you have dropped it or handled it careless.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 5:18:32 AM

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

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:13:00 GMT, you, Roland Karlsson
<roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com>, wrote in
news:Xns95DEC37EDBDB8klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

>
> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:5dqdnQPEXdlxsHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com:
>
>> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the
>> optical viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of
>> electronics, but if we're wishing for the moon here ...
>
> Yes - there are three reasons.

Well, it's been done before and available as a seperate LCD viewfinder for
Contax cameras. Not too expensive for a Contax either . No reason Canon,
Nikon et al can't do it for much less, given their economy of scale.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 5:19:56 AM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:18:32 GMT, you, "T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca>,
wrote in news:Xns95E4D8C3B722gehatagubzrpbz@corporate.utopia.disorg:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:13:00 GMT, you, Roland Karlsson
> <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com>, wrote in
> news:Xns95DEC37EDBDB8klotjohan@130.133.1.4:
>
>>
>> "Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:5dqdnQPEXdlxsHrcRVn-jA@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the
>>> optical viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of
>>> electronics, but if we're wishing for the moon here ...
>>
>> Yes - there are three reasons.
>
> Well, it's been done before and available as a seperate LCD viewfinder
> for Contax cameras. Not too expensive for a Contax either . No reason
> Canon, Nikon et al can't do it for much less, given their economy of
> scale.
>
>

Forgot the link: http://www.adorama.com/YSFE1.html


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 6:22:16 AM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:o qa5c2-

> To focus on the actual sensor is a HUGE benefit IMHO.
> Then you are sure that what you see in focus actually
> is in focus.

If it were but so! I have not yet seen an EVF or LCD which shows
1:1 pixel for manual focussing, though I have not been looking
for that, either.

So you cannot even tell by looking if anything is or is not
in focus.

> If you have some separate focussing means,
> then you have to make the camera with very small tolerances.
> That costs money - and it is not robust.

It seems to work well enough for film and digital SLRs.

> You should
> really send your camera for callibrating now and then,
> at least when you have dropped it or handled it careless.

You should not mishandle your camera in the first place. :-)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 7:32:06 AM

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:45:12 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com>, wrote in news:o qa5c2-ep2.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

> - You could put a lens + sensor *onto* the optical view finder
> PRO: - can be done after-market
> CON: - can only use either-or --- and you need to move the
> sensor physically out of the way (flipping up may be
> bad if you mounted a flash ...)
> - no integrated LCD: where to mount it?

The Contax FE-1 LCD Finder F/ N1 is made exactly like that.

For DSLRs that already have an LCD, you can either have a seperate LCD
like the Contax or just have another input for the built-in LCD to plug
in the output from a sensor that's mounted onto the eyepiece. It's gotta
be either-or anyways, because you can't practically look at both
simultaneously. It's a bit inconvenient to plug/unplug though, unless you
can make a small enough mechanism to switch the sensor like those built-
in eyepiecs shutters.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:01:32 AM

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:45:12 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02
@sneakemail.com>, wrote in news:o qa5c2-ep2.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

>>> Is there a reason the lcd panel couldn't take its feed from the
>>> optical viewfinder? Yes, I know it would mean a whole new set of
>>> electronics, but if we're wishing for the moon here ...
>
>> Yes - there are three reasons.
>
> - You could put a small sensor directly behind the AF sensors
> (they already use a halfmirror to feed them).

There's already another small CCD sensor located in the pentaprism/mirror
box of all current SLRs (film or digital) - the light metering sensor.
Nikon could just as simply as increase their own 1005 pixel sensor up to
200000 pixel and use it for both metering and video feed. Simple enough!!!


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 4:35:44 PM

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

T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:45:12 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02

>> - You could put a small sensor directly behind the AF sensors
>> (they already use a halfmirror to feed them).

> There's already another small CCD sensor located in the pentaprism/mirror
> box of all current SLRs (film or digital) - the light metering sensor.
> Nikon could just as simply as increase their own 1005 pixel sensor up to
> 200000 pixel and use it for both metering and video feed. Simple enough!!!

But how much light does it get?

With huge pixels you don't need much light for accurate measuring.
With 200k pixels you have 200 times more pixels, so each pixel
receives --- at best![1] --- 1/200 of the light. That's at least
7 2/3 stops less light ... which will make the sensor unable to
show anything and even though you can average over 200 cells,
you'll still get mostly noise.


-Wolfgang

[1] if there is no additional space (in mm^2) between the active
parts of the sensor cells or if any spaces are of no matter
due to perfect microlenses.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:52:37 PM

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

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:35:44 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>, wrote in
news:0i97c2-ueo.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:45:12 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> <ozcvgtt02
>
>>> - You could put a small sensor directly behind the AF sensors
>>> (they already use a halfmirror to feed them).
>
>> There's already another small CCD sensor located in the
>> pentaprism/mirror box of all current SLRs (film or digital) - the
>> light metering sensor. Nikon could just as simply as increase their
>> own 1005 pixel sensor up to 200000 pixel and use it for both metering
>> and video feed. Simple enough!!!
>
> But how much light does it get?
>
> With huge pixels you don't need much light for accurate measuring.
> With 200k pixels you have 200 times more pixels, so each pixel
> receives --- at best![1] --- 1/200 of the light. That's at least
> 7 2/3 stops less light ... which will make the sensor unable to
> show anything and even though you can average over 200 cells,
> you'll still get mostly noise.
>

You're assuming the sensor gotta stay the same size. While the size/pixel
density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size of the
pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large enough and
suitable for the application. A 1/3' or 6mm is not big at all and more than
enough for 200k res.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 1:54:53 AM

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

Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:o j56c2-
mtu.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:o qa5c2-
>
>> To focus on the actual sensor is a HUGE benefit IMHO.
>> Then you are sure that what you see in focus actually
>> is in focus.
>
> If it were but so! I have not yet seen an EVF or LCD which shows
> 1:1 pixel for manual focussing, though I have not been looking
> for that, either.
>
> So you cannot even tell by looking if anything is or is not
> in focus.

I am not talking about manual focussing.

>> If you have some separate focussing means,
>> then you have to make the camera with very small tolerances.
>> That costs money - and it is not robust.
>
> It seems to work well enough for film and digital SLRs.

Not really. One of the reasons pro cameras are so
much more expensive is that they are made more accurate
to focus correctly. If you focus on the sensor - this
is not needed.

>> You should
>> really send your camera for callibrating now and then,
>> at least when you have dropped it or handled it careless.
>
> You should not mishandle your camera in the first place. :-)

I assume you throw your camera body away every time
you "mishandle" it :) 


/Roland
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 5:59:25 AM

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

T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:35:44 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:

>>> There's already another small CCD sensor located in the
>>> pentaprism/mirror box of all current SLRs (film or digital) - the

>> But how much light does it get?

>> With 200k pixels you have 200 times more pixels, so each pixel
>> receives --- at best![1] --- 1/200 of the light. That's at least
>> 7 2/3 stops less light ... which will make the sensor unable to
>> show anything and even though you can average over 200 cells,
>> you'll still get mostly noise.

> You're assuming the sensor gotta stay the same size.

Well, I'd hate a huge buckle where I'd put a flash.

> While the size/pixel
> density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size of the
> pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large enough and
> suitable for the application.

You'll *still* get only 1/200 of the light per pixel. Best case.

Unless you dim the viewfinder or the AF sensors.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 6:11:05 AM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote in news:o j56c2-
> mtu.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:
>> Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>>> To focus on the actual sensor is a HUGE benefit IMHO.
>>> Then you are sure that what you see in focus actually
>>> is in focus.

>> If it were but so! I have not yet seen an EVF or LCD which shows
>> 1:1 pixel for manual focussing, though I have not been looking
>> for that, either.

>> So you cannot even tell by looking if anything is or is not
>> in focus.

> I am not talking about manual focussing.

Ahh! In that case you may have the advantage of 'simple',
and the disadvantage of not having a specialist sensor:
- bayer patterns can get in the way of measuring lines
- non-colour-filter hampered sensors get more light
- having 2 sensors, one 'too close' and one 'too far' can give
you a good indication which way to sharpness

>> It seems to work well enough for film and digital SLRs.

> Not really. One of the reasons pro cameras are so
> much more expensive is that they are made more accurate
> to focus correctly. If you focus on the sensor - this
> is not needed.

I believe that to be a minor part of the cost, and inherent to
the SLR design --- even with manual focus film SLRs (the matte
glass has to be placed exactly as well).

Much more impact on the price would be the following factors:
- a bigger, solid body
- mounts for exchangeable lenses
- mirror design (EVFs are at best "usable"), and range
finders are not through the lens --- and that has not
- a (comparatively) huge sensor: expensive, but good at high
ISO values

>>> You should
>>> really send your camera for callibrating now and then,
>>> at least when you have dropped it or handled it careless.

>> You should not mishandle your camera in the first place. :-)

> I assume you throw your camera body away every time
> you "mishandle" it :) 

Well, I have not yet to whack someone over the head with a serious
camera (or serious glass), so there! :-)

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 9:23:35 AM

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

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:59:25 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>, wrote in
news:tko8c2-hhv.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:35:44 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> There's already another small CCD sensor located in the
>>>> pentaprism/mirror box of all current SLRs (film or digital) - the
>
>>> But how much light does it get?
>
>>> With 200k pixels you have 200 times more pixels, so each pixel
>>> receives --- at best![1] --- 1/200 of the light. That's at least
>>> 7 2/3 stops less light ... which will make the sensor unable to
>>> show anything and even though you can average over 200 cells,
>>> you'll still get mostly noise.
>
>> You're assuming the sensor gotta stay the same size.
>
> Well, I'd hate a huge buckle where I'd put a flash.
>
>> While the size/pixel
>> density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size of
>> the pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large enough
>> and suitable for the application.
>
> You'll *still* get only 1/200 of the light per pixel. Best case.
>
> Unless you dim the viewfinder or the AF sensors.

It's entirely possible that the pixel size of the Nikon sensor is already
200 times overkill if the sensor itself is anywhere round 5mm diagonally,
and my educated guess is it's already that large/tiny. And it has nothing
to do with the AF sensors.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:42:58 PM

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

T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:59:25 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:

>>> While the size/pixel
>>> density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size of
>>> the pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large enough
>>> and suitable for the application.

>> You'll *still* get only 1/200 of the light per pixel. Best case.

>> Unless you dim the viewfinder or the AF sensors.

> It's entirely possible that the pixel size of the Nikon sensor is already
> 200 times overkill if the sensor itself is anywhere round 5mm diagonally,
> and my educated guess is it's already that large/tiny. And it has nothing
> to do with the AF sensors.

Uh, maybe I am stupid, but why would the sensor be oversized?
Sensors cost money, large sensors much more so, thus they reduce
margin and drive costs up.

And if they are "oversized", why should Nikon not give them just
enough light to work? Why waste light when the viewfinder and
the AF need all they can get?

So for your proposed change you have to take extra light and thus
dim AF sensors or the viewfinder. And since --- unlike the main
sensor --- this sensor has to deliver data every 1/30 or 1/60
second, it's not a little bit of light either, or it won't work
well enough for composing in dim conditions, even with very noisy
ISO equivalents.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:37:03 AM

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

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:42:58 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>, wrote in
news:ibu9c2-1pq.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:

> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:59:25 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> While the size/pixel
>>>> density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size
>>>> of the pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large
>>>> enough and suitable for the application.
>
>>> You'll *still* get only 1/200 of the light per pixel. Best case.
>
>>> Unless you dim the viewfinder or the AF sensors.
>
>> It's entirely possible that the pixel size of the Nikon sensor is
>> already 200 times overkill if the sensor itself is anywhere round 5mm
>> diagonally, and my educated guess is it's already that large/tiny.
>> And it has nothing to do with the AF sensors.
>
> Uh, maybe I am stupid, but why would the sensor be oversized?
> Sensors cost money, large sensors much more so, thus they reduce
> margin and drive costs up.
>
> And if they are "oversized", why should Nikon not give them just
> enough light to work? Why waste light when the viewfinder and
> the AF need all they can get?

Oversized because it's 1996 technology.

> So for your proposed change you have to take extra light and thus
> dim AF sensors or the viewfinder. And since --- unlike the main
> sensor --- this sensor has to deliver data every 1/30 or 1/60
> second, it's not a little bit of light either, or it won't work
> well enough for composing in dim conditions, even with very noisy
> ISO equivalents.

It never affects the AF sensor because it's located in the pentaprism
box, at the top part of the camera, where as the AF sensor module is at
the bottom of the mirror box, lower part of the camera. They have
seperate optical paths after the split mirrors.

Sensors around 5mm in size have been used for 2 megapixel digicams for
quite some time and would easily be more than enough for a 2-300k pixel
video feed.


Rgds,
February 2, 2005 10:37:04 AM

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

"T.N.T." <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns95F11AA086FABgehatagubzrpbz@corporate.utopia.disorg...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:42:58 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com>, wrote in
> news:ibu9c2-1pq.ln1@ID-52418.user.berlin.de:
>
> > T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:59:25 GMT, you, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> >>> T.N.T. <tnt@localhost.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>>> While the size/pixel
> >>>> density of the Nikon sensor is unkown, but by increasing the size
> >>>> of the pentaprism and box, I imagine the sensor can be made large
> >>>> enough and suitable for the application.
> >
> >>> You'll *still* get only 1/200 of the light per pixel. Best case.
> >
> >>> Unless you dim the viewfinder or the AF sensors.
> >
> >> It's entirely possible that the pixel size of the Nikon sensor is
> >> already 200 times overkill if the sensor itself is anywhere round 5mm
> >> diagonally, and my educated guess is it's already that large/tiny.
> >> And it has nothing to do with the AF sensors.
> >
> > Uh, maybe I am stupid, but why would the sensor be oversized?
> > Sensors cost money, large sensors much more so, thus they reduce
> > margin and drive costs up.
> >
> > And if they are "oversized", why should Nikon not give them just
> > enough light to work? Why waste light when the viewfinder and
> > the AF need all they can get?
>
> Oversized because it's 1996 technology.
>
> > So for your proposed change you have to take extra light and thus
> > dim AF sensors or the viewfinder. And since --- unlike the main
> > sensor --- this sensor has to deliver data every 1/30 or 1/60
> > second, it's not a little bit of light either, or it won't work
> > well enough for composing in dim conditions, even with very noisy
> > ISO equivalents.
>
> It never affects the AF sensor because it's located in the pentaprism
> box, at the top part of the camera, where as the AF sensor module is at
> the bottom of the mirror box, lower part of the camera. They have
> seperate optical paths after the split mirrors.
>
> Sensors around 5mm in size have been used for 2 megapixel digicams for
> quite some time and would easily be more than enough for a 2-300k pixel
> video feed.
>
and what electronics would be needed to match a APS-C/DX sensor's FOV to the
5mm one?
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:32:51 PM

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:01:20 GMT, you, "Darrell" <dev/null>, wrote in
news:sPednQWBnMSmQJ3fRVn-og@rogers.com:

>> Sensors around 5mm in size have been used for 2 megapixel digicams
>> for quite some time and would easily be more than enough for a 2-300k
>> pixel video feed.
>>
> and what electronics would be needed to match a APS-C/DX sensor's FOV
> to the 5mm one?

Why? The FoV would be exactly the same as the one on the focusing screen.


--
T.N.T.

Lbh xabj jung gb qb vs lbh rire jnag gb rznvy zr.
!