One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

Bob Larter wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:

You're assuming that live-view is a good thing. Many people would
disagree.

What would they say? How is live-view not usefuledit,/edit or
detrimental?

You've missed all of the dozens of discussions here about live-view?

I've seen some on RPDS, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Okay. Speaking only for myself, I can judge focus much better on an OVF
than on an EVF. Firstly, no EVF allows me to see fine focus at the same
time that I'm composing the shot. Secondly, there's a lag (not much of
one, but it's still there) between aiming the camera & seeing the image on
the EVF. If you can cope with both those factors, great, but I can't.

That's about EVFs. I assumed you were talking about live previews, like
Canon and Nikon's Live View modes.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:17:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-10-26 10:11:15 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:31:49 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:28:44 -0400, John A. wrote
in :

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:24:07 -0700, John Navas

Lenovo has of course been building them since well before the buyout,
which included the people who designed and supported them, and I'd
personally say the T6x, T400 and T500 are better than earlier T-series
machines.

Haven't looked at them lately. Do they still have the classic
mid-keyboard nipple-mouse? (I much prefer those over the touch pads.)

Both trackpoint and touchpad, together or selectable, the best of both
worlds.

In my opinion, the worst of any world. I plug in a mouse with my
laptop. Can't stand to be dicking around with a touch pad.

Agreed.

At home I use a Logitech Trackman Wheel with my Macbook Pro.
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/mi...s/166&cl=us,en

When travelling I pack a Kensington Bluetooth Mouse.
http://us.kensington.com/html/12635.html

I use a Logitech Trackman Wheel, a mouse, and a tablet with my
desktop...all plugged in all the time. I have a small mouse that I
carry in my laptop's case, but any of the above pointing devices could
be used with the laptop.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

The tough one is phase based auto focus. I think I have at least three
ways that might accomplish this without a mirror. One of them allows 3D
images to be taken directly with a normal lens. Other, more inventive
types, can probably think of other solutions.

Don't you think that all of the major digital camera manufacturers have
been trying to come up with a solution to the auto-focus problems on P&S
models? ...

There are no such problems.

LOL. Digicam "shutter-lag". (More accurately described as slow AF.)

cue up: 'just use manual focus'

ever notice how people who have cameras with slow autofocus brag about
how well the manual focus works?

Bob Larter wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
Wilba wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:

You're assuming that live-view is a good thing. Many people would
disagree.

What would they say? How is live-view not usefuledit,/edit or
detrimental?

You've missed all of the dozens of discussions here about live-view?

I've seen some on RPDS, but I'm interested to hear what you have to
say.

Okay. Speaking only for myself, I can judge focus much better on an OVF
than on an EVF. Firstly, no EVF allows me to see fine focus at the same
time that I'm composing the shot. Secondly, there's a lag (not much of
one, but it's still there) between aiming the camera & seeing the image
on the EVF. If you can cope with both those factors, great, but I can't.

That's about EVFs. I assumed you were talking about live previews, like
Canon and Nikon's Live View modes.

Same thing. If you're shooting something static, it's not an issue, if
you're shooting something in motion, it is.

OK, so for moving subjects, or when manually focussing on static subjects,
you prefer an OVF? Fair enough. That leaves a lot of scope for live views to
be "a good thing" for others.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:21:19 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:11:15 -0400, tony cooper
wrote in
:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:31:49 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:28:44 -0400, John A. wrote
in :

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:24:07 -0700, John Navas

Lenovo has of course been building them since well before the buyout,
which included the people who designed and supported them, and I'd
personally say the T6x, T400 and T500 are better than earlier T-series
machines.

Haven't looked at them lately. Do they still have the classic
mid-keyboard nipple-mouse? (I much prefer those over the touch pads.)

Both trackpoint and touchpad, together or selectable, the best of both
worlds.

In my opinion, the worst of any world. I plug in a mouse with my
laptop. Can't stand to be dicking around with a touch pad.

I have a mouse too. All have their place.
A limitation is not a feature.

Every spec is a limitation.

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

ever notice how people who have cameras with slow autofocus brag about
how well the manual focus works?

Funny that, eh?

one of the best ones i've heard was 'the camera isn't slow, it is
actually faster than what ansel adams used'

In article , John Navas
wrote:

There are no such problems.

LOL. Digicam "shutter-lag". (More accurately described as slow AF.)

Again, no such problem with better compact digital cameras.

yes there is

A good contrast detection system can use such things as predictive
focus, focus tracking, and continuous focusing, making focusing very
fast in many cases.

contrast detect is going to have a difficult time doing predictive
focus when it can't determine how far out of focus something is or in
which direction.

My Panasonic FZ28, for example, can be set to start
focusing when it detects the camera has stopped moving. As a result,
when I shoot action sports, focusing when I press the shutter is near
instantaneous and very accurate.

'near instantaneous'

As DPReview said of the FZ8 (two
generations less sophisticated than the FZ28): "... focus (using the
high speed AF mode) is very fast. ... the actual delay between pressing
the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous)."

'almost instantaneous.'

except that the *numbers* show that it is actually *slower* than a dslr.

Phase detection systems have their own issues, notably misfocusing due
to focus system errors (open loop versus closed loop), in part because
an interchangable lens camera doesn't have the kind of built-in
knowledge of the lens that a fixed lens camera has.

the camera definitely has the knowledge about the lens that's attached.
what in the world makes you think it doesn't?

you must feel very threatened to resort to false statements to justify
your choice in cameras.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

cue up: 'just use manual focus'

Yeah, 'cos that works /so/ well on a tiny LCD.

It actually does work very well, better than OVF, thanks to automatic
focus assist, which isn't possible with OVF.

sometimes. not always.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:20:47 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

ever notice how people who have cameras with slow autofocus brag about
how well the manual focus works?

Funny that, eh?

one of the best ones i've heard was 'the camera isn't slow, it is
actually faster than what ansel adams used'

Ever notice how those with marginally faster auto-focus never brag about
how their camera is far more innacurate than those slower auto-focus
cameras? (causing them to miss a large percentage of their
once-in-a-lifetime, you'll-never-get-the-chance-again shots)

Why is that?

Trolls Trolls Everywhere And Not a One To Think wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:20:47 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

ever notice how people who have cameras with slow autofocus brag about
how well the manual focus works?

Funny that, eh?

one of the best ones i've heard was 'the camera isn't slow, it is
actually faster than what ansel adams used'

Ever notice how those with marginally faster auto-focus never brag about

Ever notice how asshole trolls never tell the truth?

--
Ray Fischer