SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
seperate path via flip up miror ?

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
seperate path via flip up miror ?


....and that is exactly why mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are
gaining favor. With the FF MILCs it is also a market Nikon, and Canon have
finally entered even though they did so 5 years late. They still have a way
to go to catch up with Sony in that market, and they are not even
contesting the APS-C, or M43 MILC market.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

Thanks for good info.

Like I suspected.

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

On Sun, 09 Sep 2018 16:39:05 -0500, Savageduck
wrote:

Nikon, and Canon have
finally entered even though they did so 5 years late.

.... and badly. I have never seen so many universally brutal reviews of
both cameras. The best I've heard is that the Canon is so bad that it
makes the Nikons look good.

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
separate path via flip up mirror ?

It depends.

First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the
product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power
(battery).

Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s
lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets.
The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few
femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to
electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit,
data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current
technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric
even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this
delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/
affects experimental designs).

Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at
your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your
LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with
the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results
in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that
the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing.


-hh

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 15:49:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:39:14 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
seperate path via flip up miror ?


...and that is exactly why mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are
gaining favor. With the FF MILCs it is also a market Nikon, and Canon have
finally entered even though they did so 5 years late. They still have a way
to go to catch up with Sony in that market, and they are not even
contesting the APS-C, or M43 MILC market.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let others do the ground-work.

Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through
the lense view camera.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

On 2018-09-09 22:49:57 +0000, RichA said:

On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:39:14 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
seperate path via flip up miror ?


...and that is exactly why mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are
gaining favor. With the FF MILCs it is also a market Nikon, and Canon have
finally entered even though they did so 5 years late. They still have a way
to go to catch up with Sony in that market, and they are not even
contesting the APS-C, or M43 MILC market.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and
Canon let others do the ground-work.

I was refering to FF MILC not APS-C, or M43 MILC, that would be about 5
years. Before that Nikon had their pathetic *1* cameras which were MILC.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

On 2018-09-10 00:05:22 +0000, -hh said:

wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
separate path via flip up mirror ?

It depends.

First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires
the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal
power

(battery).

....and so the MILCs which work do just that.

Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as
there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving
targets.
The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a
few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires
photon to
electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data
transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be
redisplayed. Even with
current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to
see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already
been found that in 3D
VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research
volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs).

What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators.
Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the
Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3
where there is no blackout even at 30fps.

Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle
is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now
positioned so that it will illuminate your
LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as
being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI,
shooting during Golden Hours results
in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the
outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make
shade to see what he’s framing.

You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same
way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. Try one some time you might
be surprised.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let
others do the ground-work.

Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through
the lense view camera.

all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras.

none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs
available.

SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 01:09:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let
others do the ground-work.

Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through
the lense view camera.

all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras.

none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs
available.
See
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/..._F707_back.jpg
See that funny thing at the top-left of the back of the camera? It's
an eye-piece.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens