Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: DSLRs are the remnants of the past...  (Read 14497 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« on: November 13, 2003, 09:20:18 pm »

I would love to see a future digital camera that eliminates the moving mirror by using a very high quality EVF, but for now there are a number of good reasons why they do not exist, so there is no need to resort to a strange conspiracy theory about camera makers all refusing to make what would be a very profitable product.

a) EVF's do not have nearly as much resolution as an optical viewfinder, so do not support careful checking of focus and other details of the image (what they call 225,000 pixels is only 75,000 each of each colour, and even 225,000 full colour pixels would not be nearly enough.)
 Increasing the resolution of the EVF enough to support good manual focusing would require far faster video read out data rates than are currently possible; otherwise there would be an annoying lag between reality and the EVF image. Not very "rangefinder like" at all.
c) These systems currently must use "electronic shutters" and between the lens mechanical shutters, which for now cannot provide the very high shutter speeds provided by an SLR's focal plane shutter.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2003, 11:20:13 pm »

Quote
In my opinion manufacturers of digital cameras made the wrong choice by producing DSLR cameras for professional photographers (and rich people). They took the old trusted technology of the SLR camera, tweaked it a bit and created something with a lot of unnecessary constraints. As a result they denied professional photographers the advantages and high tech features prosumer cameras already have. What are these? In a random order as they come to my mind:

    1. pre exposure histogram view
    2. rotateble viewfinder
    3. real time white balance checking
    4. mirror-less operation without loosing the possibility to see the real image that will be recorded at all time.
Well, as a highly satisfied 1Ds owner, let me address  your points:

1. A pre-exposure histogram would be nice, but since a post-exposure histogram is available, taking a test shot and checking the histogram is not a huge problem. I can live without it.

2. The view in the viewfinder of the 1Ds is far more detailed and accurate than any EVF can hope for with the current state of technology. An 11 megapixel LCD for a decent 1Ds EVF would cost far more than the $7200 I paid for my body. And the computing power required to process the data from an 11MP sensor, Bayer interpolate it, and send it to the 11 MP super-EVF at a decent frame rate (>20 FPS) would challenge the computational abilities of the fastest desktop machines currently available and would require the body to be much larger and heavier, require active cooling (lots of fans) and a very hefty power supply. Digicams can do real-time preview in the EVF because of the very low resolution involved means the computational requirements are very modest. I'll keep the optical viewfinder for now, thank you very much. It even works when the camera is turned off!

3. When shooting RAW, you have total control over the white balance; you are working with the data straight from the sensor before any white balance has been applied. The disadvantage to this would be...?

4. See point #2.

In my opinion, given the current state of technology, DSLRs are about as good as they can be, and offer the greatest level of features possible at the various price points available. I used to own a digicam with all of the "advantages" you mentioned, and I sold it to help me buy the 1Ds, because the 1Ds will capture a much higher quality image in a much wider variety of circumstances than the digicam could. And to me, that is the ultimate measure of a camera.
Logged

Jeff Donald

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
    • Florida Center for Creative Photography
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2003, 08:35:08 am »

The chrominance portion of a video signal contains signifiacantly higher noise levels than the luminance (B&W) component.  Removing the color reduces noise and allows for higher resolution images and easier focusing.  The same is true of small CRT's and LCD's.  Professional video cameras use B & W screens to better aid in judging focus.  I can hear the outcry from consumers now.  "You mean I spent $1,000 and all I get is a crummy B & W view finder?"  Color is only used in consumer and most prosumer video view finders.  Most LCD's used in view finders only display 65,000 colors, another problem.
Logged

victoraberdeen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
    • http://www.abovo-media.com
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2003, 05:48:46 pm »

Yes, Bobtrips, your right about the next generation of photographers, I watch them now peering at the LCD’s never looking through the viewfinder! When the EVF looks like the end image and not like a poor representation, however before we get there we will have this mixed solution.

Now you do touch on an interesting subject, the suitability of the SLR format; it may have had it’s day real soon and the EVF is just one of the contributing factors in it’s ultimate demise. My personal preference now is not to use an SLR preferring the rangefinder format, oh for a 1Ds quality version. And like you my first SLR was a Pentax S1a in the early 70s.

Just playing dumb with you 
Logged

David Mantripp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • :: snowhenge dot net ::
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2003, 03:15:40 pm »

The only reason you find so many cameras with EVFs is that they are much cheaper to use than designing quality optical viewfinders, which almost no manufacture seems to care about (apparently Konica do quite a good job).  How many EVF digicams let you manually focus anyway ? A few top end digicams. Otherwise MF, when it exists, is actually "guess a number and enter it in submenu 56 of menu F when holding ALT-CTRL-DEL and dancing a jig".  EVFs are pure rubbish and have nothing to do with photography. And as far yadayadayada one day they'll be better - total hogwash. They _could_ be better now, but the bottom line would suffer. And that's what it's all about. Piping a direct feed into a nasty little 4 cent  LCD is one helluva lot cheaper than running an optical design department.
Logged
--
David Mantripp

Matthew Cromer

  • Guest
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2003, 04:52:51 pm »

I've used both and I prefer the live LCD for landscape photography, hands down.

As implemented on my current camera (Sony 717) the live LCD displays a live histogram, 100% coverage, continuous DOF preview, displays a bunch of shot info when I want, tilts up and down, displays the "sensor view" of the image (IE I can see the scene dynamic range on the LCD and see what areas are dark and light) and, best of all the image looks like the final product much more than a viewfinder (which to me is more like looking through a telescope).  It's just amazing to be able to shoot and review on a tripod without having to crouch down / bend over / peer through a cramped viewfinder, then switch to the LCD for review, switch back and reframe and reshoot, etc.  None of that dim DOF preview button nonsense either.

Yes there are some downsides for sure, but the overall working methodology is, IMO, far superior for my landscape photography work.

I'm hoping that someone comes out with a premium SLR system with live preview instead of a mirror.  Maybe Sony will release a 20 MP 4/3 system camera.
Logged

David Mantripp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 826
    • :: snowhenge dot net ::
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2003, 11:23:41 am »

Quote
Actualy you do sound rude.

Really ? And I was hardly trying.

Well anyway, what do you expect ? Approx 99% of the quality educated photo press is totally against EVFs as currently implemented, for an extensive list of reasons.  You give no reasoning, just pop up here and basically rant about nothing in particular (unlike Mathew Cromer, who, whilst I find his views surprising, backs up what he has to say with clear examples of his experience).  Maybe you have enormous experience and are a talented photographer. I don't know, but choosing a username like SurfKid and then posting what sounds more like a troll than anything else, and following up by refusing to consider any other point of view is not "discussion" or a good way to get taken seriously. I suggest you switch to DPReview forums. You'll find many a like-minded contributor over there.

Anyway, I've got more constructive things to do than argue about electronic gadgets.
Logged
--
David Mantripp

Matthew Cromer

  • Guest
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2003, 04:12:08 pm »

I should add that there are some very good reasons to use an optical viewfinder and I prefer them for shooting birds, action, etc.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2003, 09:37:43 am »

There is a strong case for using EVF's in mainstream digital camera formats, meaning 2/3" and smaller since that is where the huge majority of sales are: getting an TTL optical viewfinder image of decent size and brightness with such small formats is difficult and expensive. The smallest format DSLR's are the 2/3" format Olympus E-10 and E-20, and the limitations of its TTL OVF are often noted.
    What would it take for a TTL OVF in 2/3" format or smaller to match the size and brightness that one gets with a f/2.8 lens in 35mm format? Increasing magnification to get the same size is maybe not a huge worry, but the light gathering ability of the lens would need to be the same too, meaning the same diameter of the maximum aperture opening diameter, which requires reducing the aperture ratio in proportion to focal length and sensor size: f/0.7 would do it. A more modest f/5.6 equivalency, matching the slowest seen on almost any 35mm lens, would require f/1.4 in 2/3" format. Maybe this speed will be offered someday, but since the oveal shooting speed and low light ability of such cameras overall is already decent, I do not see a drive to such huge, fast lenses just for the sake of the TTL OVF; developing EVF's will be far more cost effective.
 
    EVF's are also clearly better and more flexible than the other options of peep-hole optical viewfinders or having only the back panel LCD, so I do see EVF's dominating in the future for the better compact digital cameras. What will happen in the larger, "proserious" formats is far less clear to me.
Logged

pmkierst

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2003, 12:10:50 pm »

Well, I would think that if we wait for the Leica Digilux 2 reviews, we may be able to learn something of the practicality of EVF's in higher-end cameras. It is EVF based if you haven't looked. Apparently, Leica feels it is the way to go, it remains to be seen if it is the right choice.
Logged
Paul K.

flash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2003, 07:53:34 pm »

I love a good argume.... "discussion".  

A question:

Can an EVF be used on a lens interchangeable SLR without having a sensor curtain in place while changing lenses? All the EVF cameras I know of have fixed lenses for this reason, don't they? Sort of like the curtain in some MF cameras (like the Mamyia 7II) that have leaf shutters.

Gordon
Logged

SurfKid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2003, 04:20:20 pm »

In my opinion manufacturers of digital cameras made the wrong choice by producing DSLR cameras for professional photographers (and rich people). They took the old trusted technology of the SLR camera, tweaked it a bit and created something with a lot of unnecessary constraints. As a result they denied professional photographers the advantages and high tech features prosumer cameras already have. What are these? In a random order as they come to my mind:

    1. pre exposure histogram view
    2. rotateble viewfinder
    3. real time white balance checking
    4. mirror-less operation without loosing the possibility to see the real image that will be recorded at all time.

Do you really need these or not? I think you do. But camera manufacturers try to convince you (not with words, but implicitly by their products) that technologically it is only possible to use low noise CCDs and interchangeable lenses if your camera is a DSLR. I think that they are either mistaken or lying.

SLR cameras were selected by professional photographers over rangfinder cameras in the past because they could see the real image through the lens be it a fish-eye, a wide angle or a tele. They learned to deal with the noise and the vibration caused by the mirror  going up and down. Good cameras used a mirror lock-up mechanism to overcome this problem.  In contrast range-finders had no mirror, so they were smaller and much more silent. But you were not able to see exactly what you were photographing.

Today the best features of these two old designs could be merged if a manufacturer wished so. Obvously none of them do.

From the technical side: if you leave out the mirror from a DSLR, replace the CCD with one that has real time dislplay possibilities and put an LCD in the viewfinder instead of a pentaprism or pentamirror you have a camera superior to any DSLRs. Four-thirds system (Olympus E1) does not come even close. And if you have an LCD in the viewfinder than you are no longer confined in one-directional viewing

I must admit though that today we do not have an imaging chip with large (> 6-8 micron)  pixels and real time signal possibilities. But I am affraid that no work is going on to create such a sensor.

Unfortunately prosumer cameras does not have interchangeable lenses, have much smaller sensors than DSLRs and are much slower. Why should someone buy a camera with such limitations?  Because in all other respect they are better and more flexible than their big brothers.
Logged

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2003, 01:22:42 am »

I've been using a EVF camera for a few years and love the features that it provides, but it doesn't have the resolution of a glass/mirror viewfinder.  I can easily understand why people wouldn't be happy with an EVF for manual focusing.

(After 30+ years of shooting with non-auto focusing film cameras I quickly realized that auto focusing is much better than I am for quick grabs.  I really don't miss manual focusing.}

I think that there is a way for EVFs to work for people who manually focus.  There are cameras that let you magnify a portion of the image (the Minolta A1 gives you an 8x portion).  For someone doing careful work off a tripod this should suffice.

----

As for 'why' the glass/mirror SLR design was used in high-end digitals, I think it had more to do with making the camera as familiar as possible to the greater portion of shooters.  

If Canon/Nikon had delivered a 'film quality' digital with a very good EVF and lenses scaled down for the sensor I doubt that they would have sold nearly as many units.  A dSLR that used a familiar body and 'already owned' lenses was a much easier transition for film SLR owners.
Logged

victoraberdeen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
    • http://www.abovo-media.com
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2003, 03:32:36 am »

The need to create a DSLR has more to do with the needs of photographers than the agenda of the camera makers. There are plenty of failed cameras that photographers did not purchase. The success is testament to the versatility of the format.

You should also consider the professional with an existing SLR kit, most will still take a film body to an all digital shoot. So should the digital fail they have only to change the body, the assignment can continue and also the income.  

Put the features you describe, add the 11Mpixel sensor into a Leica M or Contax G style rangefinder camera and keep the glass viewfinder and you will have a winner. Providing the image quality is equal to the film versions. But, such a product would have little effect on the DSLR market, the need is well understood and not impacted by current digital technology.

The camera is but the tool, a tool to develop art just like a brush or chisel, it is the artist who creates the art. So what ever camera you have create some fine photographs.

Victor
Logged

victoraberdeen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
    • http://www.abovo-media.com
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2003, 03:42:46 am »

Quote
lot of emphasis on where the 'older' is better and a lot of minimizing about where the 'new' can be better.
Sorry Bobtrips, but you seem to be missing the point.

1: EVF’s are not new, they have been around since the 60’s so the technology is well understood.
2: the age of an idea or technology has nothing to do with the ideas capabilities to do the prescribed task.
3: the adoption curve of technology is well documented find a copy of - Diffusion of Innovations by Everett M. Rogers (1962)
4: it is not capability of EVF but the economics - why replace the optical VF.

Most viewfinders even in SLR’s are just an approximation of the frame. This is why you see specs for the viewfinder like this - 10D : 95% frame coverage; where the 1Ds it is 100%. Yet the same is true on the G3 with 97% and the G5 100%. What is the point here, a camera is a technology compromise between performance and cost and even on high end cameras the LCD screen is only an illustration of the final image, in all its qualities. Television viewfinders are often monochrome to provide the visual quality to judge focus. A consequence of this is that the camera operators are continuously glancing at off air monitors and the live subject.

The resistance is not that we are a bunch of laggards, but that we understand the limitations. Will we see EVF’s as good as optical ones, probably, but it will take a new accident of technology to happen.

Enjoy the pictures…

Victor
Logged

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2003, 01:08:33 pm »

Quote
But Bobtrips, I understood your point it is just not connected to the business of making cameras. The good enough equates only to can we sell this at a profit. We are generally only able to choose the camera technology that is offered by the camera makers.

And check your history on optical viewfinders, long before the 1950's. My point was that it is not a new technology - yawn.
Well Victor, yawn away.

Thing is, there are lots of people who are working their way up the 'camera ladder' and experiencing EVFs and their advantages as we speak.  Those people are going to want pre-shot histograms and live LCD views.  They had them with a 'lesser' camera.

More and more people are going to question the value of a heavier, 'less than full-frame view', option-limited viewfinder.  The camera market is very competitive and manufacturers watch trends carefully.  I suspect that before long we will see a 5700/818/A1 with exchangeable lenses.  The A1 with it's 'in-body' image stabilization would make a great test platform.  

(I don't know if you're being cute or thick, but EVFs are very new to single image cameras.  I bought my first glass/mirror SLR about 40 years ago.  The first opportunity to purchase a EVF camera arrived well under 10 years ago.)
Logged

SurfKid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2003, 09:36:41 am »

From your posts it seems to me that most of you thinks the quality of the EVF is the veakest point in today's digital cameras. It may be, but nobody have tried to sell a pro grade camera with an EVF yet, so all of you say about how such a beast would sell is speculative. It may sell wonderful. It may not. Manufacturers understandably want to minimize production costs and maximize profit. They may think that professional photographers are conservative and would not buy them. I think that they have a much higher profit margin on their pro-line cameras then on the prosumer line. Until pro photographers have no choice they will buy the more expensive cameras even with their limited features and even rationalize why they do not need the features they are not given. This is the only reason we do not have professional interchangeable lens EVF cameras yet or fixed zoom lens cameras with better autofocus and speed.

E.g. the main difference between the Canon 300D and 10D is not the quality of the body materials, but the software features. Canon have restricted features of the 300D so as not to create a competitor to its own 10D. Had the 300D the same capabilities as the 10D in a weaker body even professional photographers would buy the cheaper one to save money for better lenses, or even an other body. And both of these cameras have optical viewfinders of different quality. But even the viewfinder of the 10D with the pentaprism falls short compared with the one in the 1Ds. Sometimes in low light situations even an EVF would be better... And of course these cameras have very good autofocus systems so manual focusing often not needed at all, so the quality of the viewfinder image should not be a real decesion factor  :)

And not only serious low(er) budget amateurs but even the pros are denied some camera features. As an extreme example. let's consider digital backs for medium format camears. Most of them do not even have any built in LCD screen, so you must carry a PDA or a laptop to see what you have captured. You may say that such a display is not needed - but why do you use a PDA then?
Logged

SurfKid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2003, 05:08:50 pm »

Quote
I don't want to sound rude, but have you ever actually used an SLR ? I mean used, not just switched on in auto point & click mode.  Doesn't sound like it..
Actualy you do sound rude. Sorry. And I know how to use an SLR. Until quite recently I have only used SLRs in the last 20 years. My old trusted Olympus OM 2n is still in use today. And that camera do not have any 'auto' feature above a simple aperture priority exposure system  And yes its viewfinder is bright and very good and in almost all respect better than the EVF in my Coolpix 5700 and I loved it. And contrary what you think  I prefer 'manual' (i.e. mechanical) focusing and zooming. I think (the meaning of this phrase see below  ) that in many cases it is easier, faster and more accurate then automatic. (And flexible manual control is what I am really missing with the Coolpix. My son has a 717 and that camera is much better in this respect because of its focus by wire or zoom by wire controls)

Quote
An EVF working as you suggest would distort the view - the image recorded by the imaging sensor would not be the same as displayed by the EVF. This is just nonsensical.

Not quite. What you see through the viewfinder of an SLR is not the exact image that you will see on your pictures. Not at all. It cannot be. Films, photo papers all 'distort' the image. So will Photoshop... On the other hand using a good EVF should give you very acurate reproduction of the colors, contrast over and underexposured areas that you will have in your image.

Quote
You think, but with out any information. Go do the research and then tell us the facts of camera production.
Yes I think so. I did not say it as a fact. You may think otherwise. You may be right and I may be wrong. Or vice versa. I simply think that to produce professonal top model cameras must cost much more than manufactoring lower level equipment. And it is more  risky business. So they must compensate this somewhat.
But unless you are an insider working for Canon, Nikon or the rest (at somewhere near the top level) you can not have reliable information on that.  So my guess is at least as good as yours.

And please do not change equipment just on my words and opinions  :D Just try the non SLR digital camera which suits your kind of photography best for a while then you will see my point.
Logged

SurfKid

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2003, 06:29:55 am »

How much pixel do you need to get the same visible resolution an optical SLR viewfinder have?

I read on the page  "http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html" that to reach the ultimate resolution of a human eye a pixel spacing of 0.3 arc-minute is needed. For a viewfinder image visually 25 cm from your eye it means a pixel size of 0.24 mm. So if the apparent size of the viewfinder image is 10.4 cm x 8.1 cm and it appers 25 cm from my eye then 180 000 pixel gives all the resolution anyone may need.
I tried to guess these data for my Coolpix 5700, which - accidentally  - have 180 000 pixels.
I guessed the apparent distance to be about 25 cm and the apparent image size to be about  8 x 5cm so it must have enough resolution!

Then what is the problem?

Well, almost any pixel count would give you the ultimate resolution if the apparent image distance and size is selected carefully. Resolution itself is just one factor. Apparent visible screen size, brightness and contrast also play a role. E.g. my SLR camera (Olympus OM2 ) have a very bright and very large viewfinder screen.The apparent image size and distance of the viewfinder image  (also just an estimate) are 25 cm, 20 cm x 14 cm respectively. To achieve this a comparable EVF must have 1000x700 pixels, more than 6 times as much pixels as my Coolpix's viewfinder have!

I do not know these data for a 10D or a 1Ds. And I have never looked through the viewfinder of the 1Ds so I cannot compare it with my Olympus.  But I read that the viewfinder image in the 10D or 300D or similar is much dimmer than the one in an1Ds. So even with a DSLR you may not get what you want .
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Guest
DSLRs are the remnants of the past...
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2003, 04:11:41 pm »

In answer to the original question as formulated in your last response, I can only add some guesses why replacement of mirror-based SLR's are still around.

Momentum and familiarity play a part. Although SLR mirror designs lead to bulk(ier) body and lens designs, it can't be that major a handicap. The experience of the last 30 odd years suggest that SLR is a successful industrial design. So to replace it you need a good reason.

Rangfinder designs lead to smaller bodies and lenses but are not useful for long focal lenses. So, on the face of it, EVF's would be a nice compromise in a rangefinder-like platform. And they may turn out to be used in exactly that way.

I have only used an EVF when borrowing a friend's camera and I can't say I liked the viewfinder image appearance. But my friend is a long-time film SLR user and he got used to it pretty quickly. The EVF seemed a bit slow to react so I can see where they'd have to improve a lot before wildlife and sports types accept them. But if they do get better, then I suspect it will likely be a matter of taste whether one likes to use them or not.

Personally, other than movement, I don't see where framing and composition decisions are hindered by them. They can show 100% of the frame and you can always look at the scene with your eyes to see the true colours. And I suspect that real-time swiveling LCD's (a external evf in that sense) are a boon to some users.

But whether the user can get used to something is not the same thing as a manufacturer deciding to design and build one. At leat not the established manufacturers whose current users have made investments in lenses and other accessories like flashes etc. But for a new manufacturer the situation is different and I am not surprised to see folks like Sony and HP, and now even Minolta and Nikon, leap in with 10x zooms coupled with evf's in their upper-end digicams. They've made the decision that there is a market worth going after.

But it's not so clear that it's worth designing and building a new SLR-like mirrorless interchangeable lens EVF-based camera system. That is, why would they bother unless there were a REALLY good reason to? As I wrote above it's not clear to me that there is universal acceptance of the idea that the current SLR designs are bad.

Were I to be given a voice in digital direction, I would say that the manufacturers' software departments should concentrate on improving digital workflow. That's where real gains could be made.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up