Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: BJL 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I should add that there are some very good reasons to use an optical viewfinder and I prefer them for shooting birds, action, etc.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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)
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.
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.
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think that they have a much higher profit margin on their pro-line cameras then on the prosumer line.
You think, but with out any information. Go do the research and then tell us the facts of camera production.
Also, you should study the purpose of the viewfinder, a professional photographer is producing photos for a purpose, for a fee. No guessing, just the requirment to know that the the picture is what was intended for the client. You'll have to provide a better reason to change to EVF than just your opinion if I'm going to bet the business on it!
-
Well SurfKid, I have used a P&S POS camera; I had a Kodak DC4800 for 2 years before purchasing the 1Ds.
Sorry Jonathan the DC4800 does not have an Electronic ViewFinder, only an optical one and an LCD panel on the back. You look 'through' it via an eyepiece. It is useable even in bright sunlight. Unfortunately its resolution is very bad as yet. E.g. the EVF of my Coolpix 5700 has only 180000 pixels (I think it is roughly 480*375) But it can be 'calibrated' (sort of), zoomed in after a shot is made (the Sony DSC717 has a focusing helper zoom: when you focus the image is magnified 2x ) and in low light it keeps the image bright (at least for not very low light levels, the 717 has an IR mode so with its EVF you can see in the dark)
-
Really ? And I was hardly trying.
That was very kind of you drm... (By the way, what a good serious alias do you have, much better than mine!) And I do not want to be personal like you so I say only this: If your kind of discussion mostly consists of insults aimed at me then I am glad that you "got more constructive things to do ".
Just to make things clear: I do not question that today there is no alternative to the (D)SLR for professional photographers. Interchangable lenses, speed, autofocus accuracy, noise level - there is no camera with EVF on the market which can compete with any of these. (And if I was a pro myself I would also buy a 1Ds today. Yes, despise me if you will that I am not a pro! But I was and am a serious amateur with more than 20 years of camera, darkroom and Photoshop experience if you want to know. And the first time I got my hands on a usable EVF camera I realized the possibilities denied to owners of (D)SLRs and features denied to EVF users.)
I did not write anywhere that today's EVF cameras are better then DSLRs. Nor did I say that you must use them instead of an SLR. My original post can be reformulated so that what is the reason that we have no alternative to SLRs yet? The answer 'because every serious photographer buys (D)SLRs you stupid' is not enough.
-
I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest, seeing valid points from both sides. I used a 35mm film camera and then I switched to digital. I am currently using a Sony F707 so my experience is only based on this camera. With the EVF I figure that I am easily able to do about 90% of what I was able to do with my octical viewfinder but with the additional features that an EVF provides. The other 10% of functionality regards the manual focus, which is usable but more difficult than on an optical viewfinder. The F707 provides a 2x expanded focus which helps but it might be better if it were 4x or more along with an easy method of scrolling around the screen to view details. As it works now the important details may not be in the center of the screen. That combined with some more resolution and a bigger screen should make manual focussing quite usable on EVF's. The new F828 already has a bigger EVF with more resolution. As far as the color on the LCD I do not see any relevance. If you think the color is way off than don't pay any attention to the color and than you are right back where you are with the current DSLR's. The way I see it, seeing the final image on the LCD screen is only a bonus and, in no way, detracts from the experience. I really enjoy being able to see my previous shot in the EVF while the camera is up to my face and I am still prepared to shoot another shot. I can make a quick exposure correction and shoot another shot in an instant. As for the slow LCD screen. At least with my Sony, it is only this way at slower shutter speeds but it is very smooth at higher shutter speeds. So action events are actually better to view on the LCD then dark indoor events. I think most people are judging this effect while they are tesing out a camera indoors in very low light and so are coming away with a false assumption of the LCD screens. With all this said, I still prefer the clarity of an optical viewfinder but I would definitely miss many of the benefits of an EVF. In another thread on another forum I actually proposed the idea of enabling the larger LCD screen on DSLR's to be used for previewing images as well by using a mirror lockup function providing a live preview. I think this would be especially great for when you are using a tripod and would prefer to use the large LCD screen to compose the shot. This would also make it easier for hard to reach shots and macro shots. With a little ingenuity I think an LCD screen for previewing a shot on a DSLR is quite possible and could work quite nicely.
T
-
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,
I can see that, given EVF's as they were when you got the E-20, that the optical viewfinder has its advantages, though no-one is offering them anymore in that format.
Since you have an E-20, can you answer some questions about its VF?
a) how large is the VF image compared to a typical modern AF 35mm SLR VF, of about 0.72x with 50mm lens?
Olympus does not give this information on its spec. sheet. [If they do give it somewhere like in the manual, I can imagine it being quoted in the strange traditional form like "1.2x @ 50mm", which would give an image about as big as for "0.3x @ 50mm" in 35mm format.]
How did the VF images size compare to that on the EVF cameras that you compared to?
c) how adequate do you find that VF image size?
Smaller format DSLR's are leading to generall smaller viewfinder images, so I am curious as to how far down the VF image size size can go before too many serious photographers find it very inconvenient.