On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:56:11 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:

All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast enough,

60 FPS with a 23millisecond lag between real image and display is not fast
enough for you? Are you talking out of your ass again? Yep.


bright enough,

EVF's are plenty bright. Too bright at times, in fact.


high-resolution EVF.


Too high of a resolution and then I'd no longer be able to use
pixel-scintillation in an EVF as a full-frame micro-prism fine-focusing
detector. An excellent advantage to macrophotography where you must get the
most important regions of your subject in focus throughout the full frame,
not just focused correctly in one spot. 180k is just about right for this
purpose. Less and the micro-prism effect becomes more difficult to see in
some situation. More and you can't see it because you can no longer see the
individual pixels in the display to determine which areas are
scintillating.

But then, pretend-photographer trolls like you would only know these things
if you had ever actually used any of the cameras that you spew your
opinions about. AND had any advanced photographer's techniques in your bag
of tricks.



I love this reply of yours, Puppygang Trollberg. Proving without a doubt
that you've never used any of the equipment nor in any of the situations
(if you had a camera) upon which you spew your useless opinions.

No problem, you can probably have that, just spend enough dollars
and carry large batteries.

An EVF uses a very very small backlit LCD panel, therefore it requires a
small light source. Resolution of that EVF has very little if nothing at
all to do with power-requirement differences. The light-source remains the
same, only the density goes up on the LCD for higher resolution, not
size--which would require more illumination.

A larger back-of-camera LCD display *can* use more power, due to the larger
area needing to be illuminated, but not so an EVF. But then this too
depends on the technology of the light-source. Cameras which could only
take 250 photos using the same size LCD and EVF displays from 10 years ago
can take 600-800 photos today on the very same power-source due to advances
in technology. Interestingly, I found that I can shoot 10.5 hours of
non-stop video (stopping only to change cards) on one of my superzoom
cameras (this is with the EVF always on) with just one set of AA batteries.
That's phenomenal performance for any video recording device on such a
small power-source.


Cheap enough and energy-saving enough
and not heating up the sensor

The EVF's light-source is nowhere near the sensor. Nor is it anywhere near
the sensor on an articulated LCD display either.


(and not blinding you at night

Good ones allow you to adjust the light levels. Even one that I have from 8
years ago has 4 levels of illumination. The darkest not quite dark enough
for preserving night-vision when photographing dim aurora (but it's okay
for use during bright aurora). When it is too bright on its lowest setting
then I merely insert a small ND filter that I cut to fit the eye-cup.

Those with only 2 settings, like many of the CHDK Powershot cameras, allow
you to overlay a brightness reducing grid on the EVF display, consisting of
a dark transparent gray, in the darkness level of your choice.


and giving your position away (e.g. when shooting shy animals)

You've never shot any photos of any animals at night, have you. You use IR
for that. On the dimmest setting, the light from the EVF reflecting on your
face is very difficult to see. I've tested this myself by holding my hand
to the light coming from the EVF at night.

What will alert an animal to your position more than any dim glow from an
EVF is that obnoxiously loud clattering mirror and shutter that's slapping
inside of a DSLR. And not just at night. 24 hours a day. With my own
experience of photographing dangerous animals in the wild, this is one of
the main reasons I found DSLRs not only useless but dangerous to use as
well. I wouldn't dare try to track down the Florida Panthers with a DSLR at
night, but I felt no such apprehension when I used a superzoom camera to
accomplish getting images of them. The same when photographing wolf and
grizzly behavior. There is also an interesting report online of some fool
with a DSLR photographing a bull-moose with flash at night. The obnoxious
sound from the camera and the light from the flash startling the moose. It
ran in the direction of what scared and threatened it. Nearly stomping the
idiot photographer to death. Too bad that Darwinism wasn't working in full
force that night.


and so on are still problems to be solved.

Yes, like getting useless pretend-photographer trolls like you to actually
purchase a camera one day. Then hoping like hell that you'll only spew out
your ridiculously stupid opinions on the camera gear you've actually used.

We all await your purchase of your very first camera. Because it's more
than obvious that you've not used any camera in your lifetime on any
subjects based on the outlandish lies and misconceptions that you
relentlessly spew about any of them.