One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:53:11 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

Mike GW8IJT wrote:
"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, "Mike GW8IJT"
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and
a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting
mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a
relic
of
film days and should be abandoned asap.
And replaced with what?

See the original message.
The electronic viewfinder will eventually rule!

If by rule you mean become the majority viewfinder on digital cameras,
we're already there. If you mean the best of the best, it remains to be
seen.

It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.

What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.

So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.

I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.
Now, be fair, you can't count the nym-shifting pest but once.......!

--
john mcwilliams

John Navas writes:
There are reasons why mirror-based DSLRs have persisted, e.g. sucky
electronic viewfinders and the slothlike speed of contrast-based
autofocus. Eventually the technical problems will be solved adequately,
and EVF designs will probably take over (hopefully with something better
than Oly's 4:3 sensor).

The technical problems have been solved -- at most the issue is cost.

They certainly haven't been solved in any current consumer cameras.

-Miles

--
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Miles Bader says...
but in part it seems that people sort of
_expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes
them seem "professional"?)

A few years ago I was using an Olympus 8080 with the 1.4x teleconverter.
To connect the teleconverter you have to screw on the 8080 an adapter
tube. The Olympus 8080 may be a compact, but the combination of camera,
extension tube and teleconverter is really big.

If it's the TCON-14D 1.4x teleconverter lens, the the combination is
rather large for a "compact":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...80_tcon14d.jpg
From the design and size, I wouldn't really lump the C-8080 in with the
compacts (what sort of monster-sized pocket does it fit into?), rather
more of a "bridge" camera (large zoom lens & vaguely SLR shaped) just
like a Minolta Dimage A2 or something similar.

I was taking some
pictures at the local club and this woman approaches me and says "... oh
... professional camera ..."

To some people: big lens + eye-level viewfinder + black coloured body =
professional camera.
I personally would say that if the camera is used to earn an income,
then it's a "professional" camera.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.
So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.
I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

--
jpmcw

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Woody says...
Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

I used to hold pre-DSLR era cameras (Oly 2000, 4040, 5050) at arms
length and could get sharp handheld shots at exposure times up to 1/13s
without IS. With a DLSR I have to be very careful at exposure times
longer than 1/25s if I switch off the IS.

After film, I used an Oly C3030 and had no complaints (well the slow
startup was awful g). When I switched to a DSLR, I really missed the
live view but I got used to it and my latest DSLR, about a year ago has
live view which I rarely use, though it is nice to have and I am eager
to get a model with video too.

There are are advantages to both. What I liked about live view is it's
more like a polaroid; it shows the actual image you will capture which
removes a level of abstraction, or adds, depending how you think of it.
I liked seeing the final contrast and composition effects. Optical
viewfinders are too much like reality and photographs are a lot
different from reality. Live view helps break the intuitive connection
between what you see with your bare eyes and what the camera actually
captures and what it looks like when you get home and show it to someone
detached from the actual scene. I have a problem with seeing things too
imaginatively, so often I'll think I see a spectacular scene but most of
the spectacle is my brain's post-processing. Experience can overcome a
lot of this but it's a constant struggle.

My vision of an ideal future camera is a hybrid. Look through the
optical finder and just tap a button to flip over to high res EVF. The
current implementation of live view in DSLRs is pretty lame. For now
it's usually more practical to use the optical viewfinder & chimp the
LCD to verify and take that step back to evaluate.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:22:17 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.
So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.
I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.
In your opinion, not in mine.
Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

I can characterize anything I want, based in fact or not. Enough folk
have spoken on the issue to be able to state clearly that your opinion
is a small minority.

--
john mcwilliams

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:00:14 +0200, Alfred Molon
wrote in
:

In article , dj_nme
says...
If it's the TCON-14D 1.4x teleconverter lens, the the combination is
rather large for a "compact":
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...80_tcon14d.jpg
From the design and size, I wouldn't really lump the C-8080 in with the
compacts (what sort of monster-sized pocket does it fit into?), rather
more of a "bridge" camera (large zoom lens & vaguely SLR shaped) just
like a Minolta Dimage A2 or something similar.
It's a compact meaning that it uses a small sensor. ...

Compact means, well ... compact.
Sensor sizes in compact cameras vary considerably,
just as they do in dSLRs.

Leaving aside the minor players in the DSLR game, there's full frame,
the Nikon 1.5 multiplier, the Canon 1.6 and 1.3 multipliers. That's not
a lot.

--
john mcwilliams

oh, yeah.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:13:24 -0400, John A. wrote
in :

On 16 Oct 2009 17:26:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:36:50 +0900, Miles Bader wrote in
:

"Mike GW8IJT" writes:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror adds hugely to the size
of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of film days and
should be abandoned asap.

What, you think it just didn't occur to them?

There are reasons why mirror-based DSLRs have persisted, e.g. sucky
electronic viewfinders and the slothlike speed of contrast-based
autofocus. Eventually the technical problems will be solved adequately,
and EVF designs will probably take over (hopefully with something better
than Oly's 4:3 sensor).

-The technical problems have been solved -

Except for power and resolution and size.

-- at most the issue is cost.

Snicker.

Good, fast, or cheap - pick two.

With a top compact digital you can have all three.

I can get 1000 shots from a dSLR and a single battery charge.
Can you get even 100 with an EVF? Can you find an EVF with a 2MP
resolution?

--
Ray Fischer

John Navas wrote:

snip

In your opinion, not in mine.


It's only my opinion, of course, and you may not agree but you're
starting to sound like a politician desperate to avoid the question and
therefore spouting the agreed party line ad infinitum.

--
Regards


Bristolian