Live LCD preview soon to come for a dSLR?

I think Olympus (and the others will follow no doubt) is hoping the LCD viewfinder on the new E-330 SLR will bring even more people over to SLR who would otherwise have bought a non-SLR to have the LCD preview. They are the ones who will most appreciate it, not the seasoned SLR user. Olympus did it because they could, and because they wanted to have another 'world first', whether established SLR users wanted it or not ( and I'm guessing most of them do not). One disadvantage of using the LCD as a viewfinder seems to have been overlooked in this thread -- camera shake. It's far easier to hold the camera steady when it's at eye-level and held against your forehead. Holding it out at arms length seems so unnatural to me (which is why I'm a DSLR user), and turning the zoom ring on the lens with the camera in this position is not something I want. Okay, so the live-preview LCD on the E-330 doesn't have to be used, but if adding such a feature compromises any other part of the camera (compared to those DSLR cameras which don't have it) I would not buy it. In any event it's a feature I would not use. If I wanted that, I'd buy a point-and-shoot.
Let's hope this feature does not become standard across all DSLRs until it absolutely does not compromise it's function and handling in any way compared to the current generation.


--
pip22

------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-169523.html

Send from http://www.photographytalk.net

With so much nonsense getting posted in this group, everyday, it is a true
pleasure to read such a well-considered and well-written post. Thank you for
that!

Rob

-----------------------------------
"pip22" wrote ...

I think Olympus (and the others will follow no doubt) is hoping the LCD
viewfinder on the new E-330 SLR will bring even more people over to SLR
who would otherwise have bought a non-SLR to have the LCD preview. They
are the ones who will most appreciate it, not the seasoned SLR user.
Olympus did it because they could, and because they wanted to have another
'world first', whether established SLR users wanted it or not ( and I'm
guessing most of them do not). One disadvantage of using the LCD as a
viewfinder seems to have been overlooked in this thread -- camera shake.
It's far easier to hold the camera steady when it's at eye-level and held
against your forehead. Holding it out at arms length seems so unnatural to
me (which is why I'm a DSLR user), and turning the zoom ring on the lens
with the camera in this position is not something I want. Okay, so the
live-preview LCD on the E-330 doesn't have to be used, but if adding such
a feature compromises any other part of the camera (compared to those DSLR
cameras which don't have it) I would not buy it. In any event it's a
feature I would not use. If I wanted that, I'd buy a point-and-shoot.
Let's hope this feature does not become standard across all DSLRs until
it absolutely does not compromise it's function and handling in any way
compared to the current generation.

pip22 wrote:


In any event it's a
feature I would not use.

I thought the same thing till I was at an event yesterday where I had to
shoot over my head blindly to get a shot (or nothing) and it would have
been a useful feature. I wouldn't use it often but I also don't see it as a
useless feature. YMMV

I do agree it was done because of all the consumers who ask about it. Just
do a search on this very forum and see how many people either ask about it
or say this "feature" which you consider useless is why they don't own a
dSLR. This and sensor dust are the two things that turn most consumers off
on dSLR's.

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
pip22 wrote:

In any event it's a
feature I would not use.

I thought the same thing till I was at an event yesterday where I had to
shoot over my head blindly to get a shot (or nothing) and it would have
been a useful feature. I wouldn't use it often but I also don't see it as a
useless feature. YMMV

I do agree it was done because of all the consumers who ask about it. Just
do a search on this very forum and see how many people either ask about it
or say this "feature" which you consider useless is why they don't own a
dSLR. This and sensor dust are the two things that turn most consumers off
on dSLR's.

Sensor dust doesn't even register as an issue with digital SLRs to
anyone other than you.

The actual reasons that more people don't move from compact cameras to
digital SLRs are as follows (in no particular order):

1. No live preview
2. No video
3. No audio
4. Size
5. Weight
6. Cost

SMS wrote:

Stacey wrote:
pip22 wrote:

In any event it's a
feature I would not use.

I thought the same thing till I was at an event yesterday where I had to
shoot over my head blindly to get a shot (or nothing) and it would have
been a useful feature. I wouldn't use it often but I also don't see it as
a useless feature. YMMV

I do agree it was done because of all the consumers who ask about it.
Just do a search on this very forum and see how many people either ask
about it or say this "feature" which you consider useless is why they
don't own a dSLR. This and sensor dust are the two things that turn most
consumers off on dSLR's.

Sensor dust doesn't even register as an issue with digital SLRs to
anyone other than you.

Yea that's why they make all those sensor cleaning kits and all the posts
about sensor dust and how to get rid of it on this forum. Even the sample
images on canon's website for the 5D have nasty dust spots! But like you
said maybe I'm the only one who saw them since I'm not a "Canon can do no
wrong" zealot who ignore any flaws they have?


The actual reasons that more people don't move from compact cameras to
digital SLRs are as follows (in no particular order):

1. No live preview


That was on my list if you didn't notice..

--

Stacey

In article , SMS
writes
Stacey wrote:
pip22 wrote:

In any event it's a
feature I would not use.
I thought the same thing till I was at an event yesterday where I
had to
shoot over my head blindly to get a shot (or nothing) and it would have
been a useful feature. I wouldn't use it often but I also don't see it as a
useless feature. YMMV
I do agree it was done because of all the consumers who ask about
it. Just
do a search on this very forum and see how many people either ask about it
or say this "feature" which you consider useless is why they don't own a
dSLR. This and sensor dust are the two things that turn most consumers off
on dSLR's.

Sensor dust doesn't even register as an issue with digital SLRs to
anyone other than you.

The actual reasons that more people don't move from compact cameras to
digital SLRs are as follows (in no particular order):

1. No live preview

My Mamiya has given me live preview since 1976, my Canon 350D also gives
me live preview. Both are usable in bright Sun light and low light, they
update instantly, and I can focus with them if I can se the subject.

2. No video

If I want video I will buy a camcorder rather than a compromise with a
record time that is far too short.

3. No audio

If I want to record audio I will get a pocket recorder, if it's video +
audio that is required then once again a camcorder with a directional
mic is the solution, not a still camera offering video-clips with an
omnidirectional mic. Admittedly being able to append an audio note to a
photograph might be handy.

4. Size

For comparable image size this will always be true.

5. Weight

For comparable image size this will always be true.

6. Cost

For comparable image size this will always be true, exacerbated by the
smaller market.
--
Ian G8ILZ

SMS, don't presume to speak for everyone. I don't agree with Stacey
all that often, but.. The only reason I haven't yet jumped to a DSLR
is that no-one has yet come up with a package that includes (in order):
- 8Mp or better (*sharp* pixels, that is)
- 'quiet' sensor up to 800 at least (I like clean images)
- self-cleaning (I like clean images!, I shoot in dusty and dirty
enviroments, and my time is valuable)
- in-camera anti-shake

I accept other photographers have different weightings, different
needs. But to *me* a self-cleaning sensor is a *big* selling point and
will save my time and effort. And your 2,3,4,5 and 6 are largely
irrelevant, to *me*.

I am *guessing* there may be others who think like me, at least about
self-cleaning.. and like Stacey, that guess is based on the quite
significant number of posts about how to clean a sensor (and sometimes,
how it has gone wrong..). I also have a sneaking suspicion that
Olympus' E300 and E500 sales would be significantly less if it were not
for that selling point - and they market it heavily. Do you think they
don't know their market?

In article , Prometheus
wrote:

My Mamiya has given me live preview since 1976, my Canon 350D also gives
me live preview. Both are usable in bright Sun light and low light, they
update instantly, and I can focus with them if I can se the subject.

Right on!

If I want video I will buy a camcorder rather than a compromise with a
record time that is far too short.

Bingo...again.

If I want to record audio I will get a pocket recorder, if it's video +
audio that is required then once again a camcorder with a directional
mic is the solution, not a still camera offering video-clips with an
omnidirectional mic. Admittedly being able to append an audio note to a
photograph might be handy.

And again.

Prometheus wrote:

snip

No argument with any of that. I just wanted to dispel the myth that
people are shying away from D-SLRs because they are worried about
getting dust on the sensor. If that were the case, the worst D-SLRs in
terms of image quality would actually be the best sellers, since they
provide some protection or mechanism to deal with dust, other than the
usual cleaning kits (which are rarely necessary, some people just like
to clean things that rarely need cleaning).

wrote:

I am *guessing* there may be others who think like me, at least about
self-cleaning.. and like Stacey, that guess is based on the quite
significant number of posts about how to clean a sensor (and sometimes,
how it has gone wrong..). I also have a sneaking suspicion that
Olympus' E300 and E500 sales would be significantly less if it were not
for that selling point - and they market it heavily.

This may be, though it's hard to imagine them having even less market
share than they do now, and continuing in the D-SLR business.

The image-stabilization of the Konica-Minolta digital SLRs was a much
more marketable feature than automatic sensor cleaning, but it didn't
help them much.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see on the E-330. The key question
is whether the new sensor has addressed the noise issues that plagued
the earlier Olympus digital SLRs. If the noise is acceptable, then maybe
4:3 really does have a chance.