A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 18, 09:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old September 9th 18, 10:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old September 9th 18, 11:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?

Thanks for good info.

Like I suspected.
  #4  
Old September 9th 18, 11:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default 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  
Old September 10th 18, 01:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default 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  
Old September 10th 18, 05:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old September 10th 18, 12:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default 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  
Old September 10th 18, 03:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 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  
Old September 10th 18, 05:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 838
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Digital SLRs [email protected] Digital Photography 4 March 9th 08 01:07 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 07:09 AM
Why these deep-set grips make little sense Rich Digital Photography 15 March 2nd 06 09:37 PM
Do full frame sensors make sense for you? RichA Digital SLR Cameras 62 June 7th 05 12:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.