DSLRs are the remnants of the past...

[David Mantripp]

ok, first lets get the mud-slinginging out of the way

By the way, what a good serious alias do you have, much better than mine!)

Really, SurfKid, you're so touchy.  My alias is simply my initials. I also sign all my posts with my full (and real) name, and provide a link to my website where you can find more about me than you could possibly want to know. You, on the other, Surf (can we call you Surf ?), well, who knows... as they say, on the Internet nobody knows you're a dog.  But I do believe that it is polite to introduce yourself in a context such as this.

So, the topic.

Personally I still feel there is something very strange about looking at my immediate surroundings on a mini TV screen, which is basically what an EVF is. A bit like photographing through a surveillance camera. Now, there is certainly, but certainly scope for inventive use of EVFs which does not require total replacing of tried, tested and to my mind wonderful optical technology. For example (and this is not my idea), what about a detachable EVF, communicating with the camera body over Bluetooth. Think how you could use this in wildlife photography. THIS is "thinking different", not pointless solving of non-existent problems with technology looking for customers. And it would be simple to implemement... (believe me I know what I'm talking about here - my paycheck depends on it)

I don't really agree with the f22 argument. Sure, you can't easily check DOF at f22  .... but, er, do you really need to ? At such apertures you can either pretty much assume infinite DOF, or at the very least use hyperfocal focussing with 99.999% of getting it right.  And the argument that viewing wide open does not give you the "true" preview first holds just as well with electronic viewing ("you cannae change the laws of physics, Jim"), and is also not fully accurate, since you're ignoring the fact that when you expose you will be using an exposure setting which will compensate for the "loss" of light. So, apart from DOF, it is WYSIWYG, and to be honest, even at small apertures, you can use DOF preview in many cases.  For low light - well do you really think that boosting the gain in an EVF is going to be a comfortable way of working in low light photography ? Will this allow you to judge shadow & light, and help you to compose. Personally I don't think so, but finally I'd prefer if we had at least the choice.

Clearly there is a huge financial incentive for camera makers to persuade people to buy EVF type cameras such as a Minolta A1 (even with interchangeable lenses) than to develop relatively costly optical SLRs.  I really hope that this does not happen; the net result would be the disappearence from the market of affordable SLRs (and rangefinders) and the eventual marginalisation of "fine art" photography as the privilege of those who would be able to afford - and appreciate - the remaining high end optical path cameras.

J.C. Bechet, writing in Reponses Photo, about camera phones, said something like "to say that users of camera phones take photographs is like saying that users of text messaging write litterature".  The growing dumbing-down of cameras which has grown with the uptake of digicams is taking us in that direction. It doesn't have to be like this.

[Scott_H]

I have an E-20, and one of the reasons I bought it was the viewfinder.  I really prefered it over the EVF's on the other cameras I looked at.

[Scott_H]

Well, I can't give you a quantitative answer.  I can tell you that qualitatively it is about 75-80% the size of the viewfinder for my EOS 630, and a little brighter.  Of course the lens on the E-20 is faster than anything I have for my EOS.

The first time I looked at the E-20 I had just looked at a Dimage 7i.  The viewfinder on the E-20 was much larger and much lighter.  Although the light in the store wasn't that good.

I haven't had any problems with the viewfinder.  I can tell when my background is out of focus, and I can tell when my subject is in focus.  It works well telling when I have a polariser set correctly as well.  I don't seem to get any surprises in my shots either, so the coverage must be good.

There were other reasons I chose the E-20.  I thought the E-20 felt a lot better in my hand, had higher build quality, and the controls seemed better placed.

It might be worth noting that there is no mirror in the E-20.  It uses a prsim to divert light to the viewfinder.  This results in less light at the sensor (about 20% less), but it is less moving parts, less noise, less vibration, and it lets you use the lcd to compose your shot.  Although the lcd isn't very good on that camera, it does tilt.

[JJP]

Affordable dig slrs with good image quality (when I say affordable, I mean the ones in the $2,000.00 price range) have only been around for less than a year.  And, I suppose, dslrs in general have only been around since the early 90's.
So, remember this:  the Wright brothers first flew in 1903 or thereabouts, but Armstrong didn't walk on the moon until 1969.  So, don't put the cart before the horse.
Secondly, manufacturing a major dslr like the big canons requires lots of money.  So, they've got to produce a "sure-thing" that has minimum risk, is reliable & will sell.  That's why they're using tried & tested film bodies.  For example, in another forum, someone posted a thread saying that Nikon had serviced an F5 that had over a million shutter operations.
Can you blame Kodak for using the F5 in their DCS 760?

[SurfKid]

Most advantages of DSLRs relative to prosumer cameras has nothing to do with them being an SLR. These are:
   1. much faster startup times
   2. much faster and more accurate autofocus
   3. much shorter storage times and higher shooting speeds because of this
   3. utilises the same lenses as the "old" film cameras - what keeps Niikon/Canon and the rest giving this possibility to a non SLR camera?
   4. much smaller noise - just because they use sensors with larger pixels
   5. More resolution in the viewfinder than EVF camerass have - this is the only reason which requires an SLR.

Now be honest: would you still buy an SLR if you could have an EVF camera (with a viewfinderl and a rotateable external LCD screen, manul focusing helper zoom) with features 1 - 4, just because of feature 5 ?

[Jonathan Wienke]

When they can make an EVF that matches the image quality of an optical viewfinder without tripling the price of the camera, I would have no problem with buying a camera that has one. Unfortunately, such a beast has not been invented yet, so the SLR optical viewfinder is currently the  best option available. I have no doubt that this will change in the next 5-10 years, maybe sooner. I'm not stuck on optical per se, just the viewfinder technology that delivers the best performance for a reasonable cost.

[victoraberdeen]

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 generaly 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.

[victoraberdeen]

Wow, I am impressed that you can focus witht he LCD, I just do the composing of grab or snaps with the LCD.

And why did all the 'new' words come out red!  

[David Mantripp]

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

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...

The point of a viewfinder is to see what you're photographing.  That means light, contrast, composition, framing. And all of these are complexly related. 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. I'll grant that an "auxiliary mode" where you could, in some cases, use some sort of assisted view (e.g through IR illumination) might be interesting in some cases - but you would need total control over this.

As for manual focus... it isn't something you only use when autofocus fails, as you seem to think.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well SurfKid, I have used a P&S POS camera; I had a Kodak DC4800 for 2 years before purchasing the 1Ds. There's absolutely no way I'm giving up the optical TTL viewfinder until LCD technology gets WAY better than it is now. An LCD panel that would really do justice to the images of the 1Ds would need to be larger than the current 1Ds body and would be an amazing power hog.

Your point about an EVF being more faithful to the recorded image than an optical viewfinder is laughable. The color calibration of the small LCD's used for EVF's (or rather the complete lack of it) means that the EVF is completely useless for accurately assessing the color accuracy and exposure level of the recorded image; you need to see a histogram to to tell if the image is properly exposed. An optical viewfinder does not become harder to see in bright conditions, and its color accuracy is limited only by the quality of the lens attached to the camera. A cheap, tiny LCD will distort the image FAR more than a good optical viewfinder.

An EVF does have some theoretical advantages over an optical viewfinder, but the technology is going to have to advance significantly for these advantages to become reality.

[Matthew Cromer]

1)  There is nothing bright about a viewfinder when trying to use DOF preview at f/22.

2)  There is nothing WYSIWYG about looking through a viewfinder at f/2.8 when the shooting aperture is f/22.  So viewfinder resolution is irrelevant when what the viewfinder is showing you is completely inaccurate.

3) Composing on a live LCD screen while standing back from the camera and tripod beats the pants off of squinting through the viewfinder, taking a picture, standing back and looking at the histogram, adjusting exposure, repeating.

4) The live histogram and live LCD let you see how the image will look in terms of dynamic range before you trigger the shutter instead of after taking a picture.  You take one shot with the exposure and histogram that you intend, instead of having to dial in on the correct exposure.

5) Looking at a live LCD is like looking at an image of the scene instead of the "looking through a telescope" feel of a viewfinder.  The live LCD seems 2-D instead of the 3D effect of the viewfinder which helps with your composition.

6) With no mirror there is no need for a heavy tripod and head to dampen shake or MLU.  You can get away with a very light tripod in most conditions.

[Robert Roaldi]

I really like Digi-T's last idea of combining MLU with LCD real-time viewing for compsing in awkward positions. I have often had to scrounge for a stool or something to stand on because I could not reach the viewfinder on the SLR when on a tripod.

[BJL]

Victor,
   I did not say that digicam MF was easy; it is a fiddly and unpleasant business, with the power focussing often jumping past the focus point; I am mostly doing this for close-ups after all. But there is no alternative, with only a non-rangefinder peep hole optical viewfinder. (The canon G5 has a somewhat better system, where the focal area is zoomed but the outer parr of the full image still shows.)
   Another adaption I have made to the unstable arms' length LCD viewfinder camera position: pushing it all the way out until the strap is tight around my neck; this seems to partially brace the camera against arm wobbles. Yes, for now life is tough without an optical TTL viewfinder.

   But onto your important question about this site: when one does a search for new posts, the search software seems to act as if one had searched on the word "new", and highlights it in red!

[David Mantripp]

Apparently, Leica feels it is the way to go, it remains to be seen if it is the right choice.

You mean Panasonic have decided it is the way to go and Leica had to come up with some justification for it  

[Scott_H]

I've looked at cameras with EVF's, and I don't think they compare to looking through the lense.  Even using the LCD on the back of my rangefinder digital camera I have a tough time telling if the shot is in focus, never mind trying to judge the effects of a polarizer or grad ND filter.  I'd rather have an SLR.

[jeffreybehr]

Most advantages of DSLRs relative to prosumer cameras has nothing to do with them being an SLR. These are:
      3. utilises the same lenses as the "old" film cameras - what keeps Niikon/Canon and the rest giving this possibility to a non SLR camera?
  

Lenses for single-lens-reflex cameras are designed to be what's called retro-focus lenses.  They are designed to focus farther to the rear than a 'normal' lens because the mirror of an SLR causes the lens to be mounted 'too far' forward.

So if an SLR lens were adapted to a rangefinder camera, the lens would have to be mounted farther forward than normal, making the camera more or less front heavy, sort of defeating one of the advantages of rangefinder design.  Focusing, too, would be a problem, since the user is no longer viewing thru the lens.

[Bobtrips]

The resistance to a high end EVF camera looks to me to be very similar to the resistance of film shooters to consider digital.  There's a lot of emphasis on where the 'older' is better and a lot of minimizing about where the 'new' can be better.

It may be a long time before an EVF can provide as view as clear and detailed as a glass/mirror viewfinder.  It may never happen.  But it may not be necessary.

The job of the viewfinder is to help the photographer take the best possible image.  EVFs already do an adequate job of framing.  Another generation or two will bring some quite good resolution to the photographer's eye.  Combine that with such work-arounds such as the ability to magnify portions of the frame to check focus, movable 'focus arrows', and (yet to be invented) and EVFs will be capable of replacing optical paths.

[Bobtrips]

Sorry Victor, but you missed my point.  EVFs may[/i] not have to achieve the same degree of resolution as OVFs before they are adopted by upper-end photographer.

All they have to do is get 'good enough' and offer sufficient other advantages that people choose them for those other advantages.



BTW, I do believe that glass and mirrors were around even back in the 1950s.  That would make them the 'older technology'.  (Returning the cheap shot ;o)

[BJL]

Yes, Bobtrips, your right about the next generation of photographers, I watch them now peering at the LCD’s never looking through the viewfinder!

Hey,
   I often do that with my digicam!  It is usually the lesser of two evils since the LCD has near 100% field of view with no parallax error, and it is vaguely possible to manual focus with it (it zooms on focus point when MF is moved). I also love to get back to my SLR viewfinder; pity that the SLR's "sensor" is still chemical rather than electronic.

P. S. French camera jargon seems better about realizing that chemical versus electronic is the real distinction with the sensors themselves; both are analogue, since the analogue to digital conversion comes later; either in-camera or in-scanner.

[Bobtrips]

Well, I've got to say that the "peep hole" viewfinders on compact digitals (and compact film cameras) are the worst of all possible solutions.  (Well, I had this camera back in the '50s that had a flip-up 'gun sight' on its top....)

My first digital was a compact.  There was no way I could take a closeup in bright sunlight.  I purchased an 'Extend-A-View' - a plastic hood with lens that attached over the LCD with Velcro.  Worked very well but I was very glad to move to a better system.