"Live View" is leading to the inevitable conclusion (that most won't like)

just bob wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
Dennis' Newsgroups wrote:
[]
Same here (not quite as much time on composition though as I don't
have that much time), but I do take a fair amount of time and would
like live view in several circumstances. I don't care if they do
put video on the DSLR if they don't make compromises on the still
frames. I wouldn't use video though on it - that is what a digital
video camera is for.
[]
Dennis

But there are times when it's more convenient to take along one
camera rather than two, particularly if size or weight matters.

Absolutely. So cram as much as you can in the little things!

I would hardly describe my DSLR as a "little thing". What probably
matters is firmware and RAM capacity rather than anything else.

David

"Dennis' Newsgroups" wrote in message
. ..

"Moonstarer" wrote in message
...
I take my time when I shoot too (each exposure runs an average of 5
minutes exposure time, not to mention the 10-20 minutes time it takes
to compose the shot) and that's why I need live view.




Same here (not quite as much time on composition though as I don't have
that much time), but I do take a fair amount of time and would like live
view in several circumstances. I don't care if they do put video on the
DSLR if they don't make compromises on the still frames. I wouldn't use
video though on it - that is what a digital video camera is for.





Dennis

I think DSLR Like cameras will become better and better and are probably
closer to what we will be getting
in the future. Less moving parts.

Tom

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
just bob wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
Dennis' Newsgroups wrote:
[]
Same here (not quite as much time on composition though as I don't
have that much time), but I do take a fair amount of time and would
like live view in several circumstances. I don't care if they do
put video on the DSLR if they don't make compromises on the still
frames. I wouldn't use video though on it - that is what a digital
video camera is for.
[]
Dennis

But there are times when it's more convenient to take along one
camera rather than two, particularly if size or weight matters.

Absolutely. So cram as much as you can in the little things!

I would hardly describe my DSLR as a "little thing". What probably
matters is firmware and RAM capacity rather than anything else.


True, what I guess I meant was, don't degrade the performance and IQ just to
put P&S features in a 1-series bodies but as far as the 40D and 400D series,
load them up with as much fun features as you can. I love leaving my 1D2N at
home and packing this little 40D without the grip and external flash for
walk-around stuff. My back likes it, too!

"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote in message
...

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
just bob wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
Dennis' Newsgroups wrote:
[]
Same here (not quite as much time on composition though as I don't
have that much time), but I do take a fair amount of time and would
like live view in several circumstances. I don't care if they do
put video on the DSLR if they don't make compromises on the still
frames. I wouldn't use video though on it - that is what a digital
video camera is for.
[]
Dennis

But there are times when it's more convenient to take along one
camera rather than two, particularly if size or weight matters.

Absolutely. So cram as much as you can in the little things!

I would hardly describe my DSLR as a "little thing". What probably
matters is firmware and RAM capacity rather than anything else.


True, what I guess I meant was, don't degrade the performance and IQ just
to put P&S features in a 1-series bodies but as far as the 40D and 400D
series, load them up with as much fun features as you can. I love leaving
my 1D2N at home and packing this little 40D without the grip and external
flash for walk-around stuff. My back likes it, too!
I agree up to a point, they can put as many features in as they like but
just make sure it does not degrade the real must have features.

On Oct 6, 2:53 pm, "Just Shoot Me" wrote:
"Dennis' Newsgroups" wrote in message

. ..





"Moonstarer" wrote in message
.. .
I take my time when I shoot too (each exposure runs an average of 5
minutes exposure time, not to mention the 10-20 minutes time it takes
to compose the shot) and that's why I need live view.

Same here (not quite as much time on composition though as I don't have
that much time), but I do take a fair amount of time and would like live
view in several circumstances. I don't care if they do put video on the
DSLR if they don't make compromises on the still frames. I wouldn't use
video though on it - that is what a digital video camera is for.

Dennis

I think DSLR Like cameras will become better and better and are probably
closer to what we will be getting
in the future. Less moving parts.

Tom

Inevitably, the reflex mirror is doomed.

RichA added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I think DSLR Like cameras will become better and better and
are probably closer to what we will be getting
in the future. Less moving parts.

Inevitably, the reflex mirror is doomed.

Rich, please forgive me for coming into this thread very late,
but I just noticed it. Given that the major technologies seem to
be some variant of EVF and some variant of DSLR, how do you
suppose camera makers might be able to offer the many advantages
of DSLRs, such as less shutter lag, better lenses, and the
ability to port your inventory of glass, external flash and
accessories when you upgrade your system, yet also take advantage
of the smaller size of the EVFs? I don't know enough about either
technology and I was an EVF zealot for years until some good
people "enlightened" me that for what I want to do, I would never
be happy without a DSLR.

Now, do I like the large size and weight? Well, no. And, I don't
like having to haul multiple lenses around or the inability to
quickly view a just-shot image in the viewfinder, the latter
being impossible because of the clunky mirror.

So, again, my apologies if this has been answered and I missed
it. I'm just curious that if the reflext mirror is doomed, what
might replace it? I suppose one other technocracy might be some
sort of "thing" that can either reflect up 90 degrees into the
view finder or be 100% transparent to allow the analog light to
get to the sensors, perhaps by electrically changing a mirror to
clear. I've seen things on various TV channels that suggest a lot
of research is being done on materials that can have their basic
properties drastically changed by specialized application of very
small amounts of electrical charge.

Thanks and have a great day!

--
HP, aka Jerry

In article . com,
RichA wrote:

Inevitably, the reflex mirror is doomed.

What do you care? You don't own a camera or know anything about
photography.

Have you ever made a prediction that has come true?

Scott W wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:53 pm, "Just Shoot Me" wrote:

I think DSLR Like cameras will become better and better and are probably
closer to what we will be getting
in the future. Less moving parts.

Inevitably, the reflex mirror is doomed.

Only if they find a way to get a non reflex camera to auto-focus fast.

In a DSLR the auto-focus uses phase detection, which gives the camera
information about how far off it is and in which direction, handy for
tracking a moving object. In a point and shoot they have to look for
max contrast, ok for objects that aren't moving and where you don't mind
taking a while for the camera to focus.

The reason DSLRs use that system is because they can't use the cheaper
contrast in the image sensor method used by P&S cameras. Being a
dedicated hardware assisted focussing method, the phase detection
system is faster. But there's no reason why the phase detection system
can't be put into a non-DSLR if people are prepared to pay for its
virtues.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 2007-08-20 18:36:25 -0700, RichA said:

Video on DSLRs.

Let us just say it is not a feature I would be willing to pay extra
for. If I want video, I want much higher quality video than any DSLR is
likely to produce in the near future.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-08-20 21:36:25 -0400, RichA said:

Video on DSLRs.

If I wanted to shoot video, I would buy a f*kn video camera, I have
zippo, not, not one iota of intereset in video. Please don't laden my
DSLR with a video interface.
--
Jim