If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-29 03:08, RichA wrote:
About time. They and Canon were about as tardy to mirror-less as Disney was to DVD. I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Jul 29, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ): On 2018-07-29 03:08, RichA wrote: About time. They and Canon were about as tardy to mirror-less as Disney was to DVD. I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. Digital cameras never did need a mechanical mirror. It just made sense for the SLR manufacturers to engineer their analog systems for digital conversion, so most of their development for the last 35 years had them thinking mirrors. Unfortunately for them Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm, Sony, and even Hasselblad leaped ahead in MILC development. That left Nikon and Canon trailing by at least 3 years, and Nikon has the additional issue of having to workout a fix for making legacy Nikkor glass work on whatever MILC they eventually release. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. Digital cameras never did need a mechanical mirror. slrs do. It just made sense for the SLR manufacturers to engineer their analog systems for digital conversion, so most of their development for the last 35 years had them thinking mirrors. Unfortunately for them Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm, Sony, and even Hasselblad leaped ahead in MILC development. except when physics gets in the way. That left Nikon and Canon trailing by at least 3 years, and Nikon has the additional issue of having to workout a fix for making legacy Nikkor glass work on whatever MILC they eventually release. it's a different segment. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 29/07/18 15:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2018-07-29 03:08, RichA wrote: About time. They and Canon were about as tardy to mirror-less as Disney was to DVD. I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. Me neither. The whole point of a "DSLR" was being able to lose the "SLR" bit. To me the term "DSLR" tended to suggest a digital with removable lens camera rather than a fixed assembly, more than it strictly being a true "SLR" Perhaps in the early days when super high res eye pieces and back displays were infeasible, it made sense. But now Panasonic can stick a hi res display into an eyepiece and on the back, it's all a bit irrelevant. Not to mention these days, you want the electronics seeing the image all the time for continuous tracking of various attributes (focus, exposure etc) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-29 16:38, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article , Tim Watts
wrote: Perhaps in the early days when super high res eye pieces and back displays were infeasible, it made sense. But now Panasonic can stick a hi res display into an eyepiece and on the back, it's all a bit irrelevant. except when it isn't. an electronic viewfinder will never be as fast as optical. the electronics adds latency. it may be 'good enough' in most cases, but not all. Not to mention these days, you want the electronics seeing the image all the time for continuous tracking of various attributes (focus, exposure etc) slrs do exactly that, long before there was digital. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-29 16:38, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing. The point of the SLR was that the photographer would see the same as the film was going to see. Well, the digital display is one step further on that road. And as Tims points out, there can be a display inside the eyepiece instead. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time. so does flushing the sensor prior to the photo and then tripping the shutter, usually using a mechanical shutter. electronic shutters may work in some cases but can have all sorts of problems in others. pro sports photographers, who can use whatever camera they want, choose slrs because it's faster than mirrorless. https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...utterstock_152 803373-2.jpg https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpg nothing is perfect in every situation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing. except that a digital display is delayed versus pure optical. it takes time to read the data off the sensor, process it and send it to the display. the latency is shorter than it used to be and won't matter for still life, but *will* matter for sports or other action photography as well as very low light. The point of the SLR was that the photographer would see the same as the film was going to see. Well, the digital display is one step further on that road. it's on a different road, with different tradeoffs. And as Tims points out, there can be a display inside the eyepiece instead. there can, but it will never be as good as pure optical, at least not until the laws of physics are overturned, which isn't going to happen any time soon. for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus hasn't thrown in the DSLR towel yet it would seem | David J Taylor[_16_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 28th 12 08:11 PM |
The sale of super belt. Hat towel brand products | jim | Digital Photography | 0 | November 21st 07 03:31 PM |
Olympus throws in the towel....on quality | Rich | Digital Photography | 5 | January 28th 07 12:23 AM |
Lexar throws in the towel | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | June 11th 05 10:47 PM |
store every photo ever without throwing them away! | billybeer | In The Darkroom | 3 | December 4th 04 07:24 PM |