If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a seperate path via flip up miror ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a seperate path via flip up miror ? ....and that is exactly why mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are gaining favor. With the FF MILCs it is also a market Nikon, and Canon have finally entered even though they did so 5 years late. They still have a way to go to catch up with Sony in that market, and they are not even contesting the APS-C, or M43 MILC market. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
Thanks for good info.
Like I suspected. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 16:39:05 -0500, Savageduck
wrote: Nikon, and Canon have finally entered even though they did so 5 years late. .... and badly. I have never seen so many universally brutal reviews of both cameras. The best I've heard is that the Canon is so bad that it makes the Nikons look good. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/ affects experimental designs). Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. -hh |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On 2018-09-10 00:05:22 +0000, -hh said:
wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ....and so the MILCs which work do just that. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. Try one some time you might be surprised. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. -hh |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... .... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ....and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. Try one some day. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... OK! Once you do that get back to us. My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. One net effect from ditching the mirror and shutter is that the camera's now a staring system rather than a metered system. In digital incarnations of staring systems, the performance of the data management system becomes quite significant ... and for high performance, high bandwidth which means that it becomes quite computationally expensive. Similarly, inclusion of a second image path in parallel for a so-called "real-time" viewfinder also incurs additional data bus bandwidth & demands on computational power. There is no free lunch. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ...and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. That you know of. Try one some day. Oh, that may become quite likely, as I got a 'headhunter' call last Friday asking about my availability later this year to take over part of a project that's working in this area. Apparently, they really liked my suggestion that they could just buy $50K worth of these current commercial products off-the-shelf with which to do some surrogate tests could get a quick reality check on their performance requirements and chop a year off of their schedule, and they're looking at me to go do just that. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Sounds good from an advertising copy perspective, but this isn't refresh rate either. The question is just how many milliseconds worth of processing delay is there from data capture of frame N to the actual display of frame N on the EVF? You don't know. And no, it isn't 1/100 = 10msec, because there can be multiple frames' in-process in the buffers before it finally gets to be the frame that's pushed out to the EVF display. As I said, the Devil is in the Details. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Except that there's no firm requirement that a MILC must contain an eye level viewfinder. And given how commonplace for there to be a rear screen too does illustrate that the OEMs do expect their users to not always employ the eye level one. As such, my comments about sun angle & display washout aren't irrelevant. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... OK! Once you do that get back to us. My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. -hh |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital SLRs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | March 9th 08 12:07 AM |
P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 109 | August 4th 07 05:10 AM |
When does SLR start to make sense ? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 39 | November 17th 06 06:09 AM |
Why these deep-set grips make little sense | Rich | Digital Photography | 15 | March 2nd 06 08:37 PM |
Do full frame sensors make sense for you? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 62 | June 7th 05 12:58 PM |