DSLR death coming?

I would have thought that digital would have eventually eliminated all *SLRs .

In article ,
wrote:

I would have thought that digital would have eventually eliminated all *SLRs .

you thought wrong.

slrs will always have a place, although not as much as it used to be.

=20=20I=20would=20have=20thought=20that=20digita l=20would=20have=
=20eventually=20eliminated=20all=20*SLRs=20.

=20you=20thought=20wrong.


we'll=20see=20...

=20slrs=20will=20always=20have=20a=20place,=20alt hough=20not=20as=
=20much=20as=20it=20used=20to=20be.


Digital=20provides=20an=20immediate=20instantaneou s=20access=20to=
=20the=20actual=20final=20result=20(=20as=20it=20w ere=20),=20so=20=
nothing=20more=20is=20needed=20by=20way=20for=20sp ecial=20previewi=
ng=20=20etc.=20All=20that=20noisy=20and=20delaying =20mechanical=20=
mirror=20crap=20eliminated.

In article ,
wrote:


I would have thought that digital would have eventually eliminated all
*SLRs .

you thought wrong.

we'll see ...

yep, we'll see that you're wrong.

they're not gone and there's no indication they're going to be extinct.

slrs will always have a place, although not as much as it used to be.

Digital provides an immediate instantaneous access to the actual final result
( as it were ), so nothing more is needed by way for special previewing etc.
All that noisy and delaying mechanical mirror crap eliminated.

that's where you're wrong.

the results are only part of it.

*before* the exposure is very important, and nothing can fully replace
an optical viewfinder.

digital viewfinders are getting better and good enough in most cases,
but definitely not all because it's physically impossible to be as fast
or as good as an optical viewfinder.

the results are only part of it.


No, the result is obviously the whole thing. With digital, "exposure" is continuous and what you see is what you get. What could be better ?


*before* the exposure is very important, and nothing can fully replace
an optical viewfinder.


Except an optical viewfinder is now totally unecessary


digital viewfinders are getting better and good enough in most cases,
but definitely not all because it's physically impossible to be as fast
or as good as an optical viewfinder.

I disagree with most of this.

In article ,
wrote:


the results are only part of it.

No, the result is obviously the whole thing. With digital, "exposure" is
continuous and what you see is what you get. What could be better ?

it isn't.

*before* the exposure is very important, and nothing can fully replace
an optical viewfinder.

Except an optical viewfinder is now totally unecessary

it isn't.

digital viewfinders are getting better and good enough in most cases,
but definitely not all because it's physically impossible to be as fast
or as good as an optical viewfinder.

I disagree with most of this.

disagree all you want. physics says you're wrong.

disagree all you want. physics says you're wrong.


If you're going to cite "physics" then you must elaborate.

You can't, besause it doesn't.

You're the one who's "wrong" .

In article ,
wrote:


disagree all you want. physics says you're wrong.

If you're going to cite "physics" then you must elaborate.

i did.

You can't, besause it doesn't.

it does.

You're the one who's "wrong" .

nope

In article ,
RichA wrote:


Except an optical viewfinder is now totally unecessary

And limiting.

false.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Except an optical viewfinder is now totally unecessary

And limiting.

false.

Limiting depending on what you shoot with and how you shoot.

evf is what's limiting. an optical viewfinder will *always* be faster
and work in more situations without artifacts.

whether it matters depends on the subject matter. sometimes it does,
which is why it will not go away any time soon, if ever.