Highest resolution Viewfinder.

I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of
the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I
don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that
Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was
rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good
enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

James Silverton wrote:
I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of
the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I
don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that
Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was
rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good
enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr.

On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x
480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as
"900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000
pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV. In use, it was
definitely better than lower-resolution finders, although I suspect you
would may need something approaching 1024 x 768 pixels to be as good as an
SLR. [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent the camera
back for a refund].

What is useful in some cameras (such as the Panasonic FZ20) is the ability
to enlarge the central section of the EVF (and LCD) when manual focussing
is engaged, allowing for a finer adjustment.

Cheers,
David

Hi David, you say

[The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
the camera back for a refund].

With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment, and at
least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies
than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.

The best!

Julio.

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
Hi David, you say

[The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
the camera back for a refund].

With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment,
and at least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2
with lies than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.

The best!

Julio.

Well, I didn't. The LCD swivel finder was very tinny (not robust), the
JPEG in-camera conversion was poor, etc. etc., and those factors together
outweighed any positive rating for the viewfinder.

For a wide-angle camera, you can't beat the Nikon Coolpix 8400 (24mm
wide-angle) and the best value telephoto stabilised camera is, in my
opinion, the Panasonic FZ20.

David

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:18:40 -0200, J.S.Pitanga wrote:

Hi David, you say

[The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
the camera back for a refund].

With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment, and at
least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies
than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.

Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers use. If
they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or 230k? Look them up.
Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if we say *everybody* is
lying.

--
John Bean

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing (Oscar Wilde)

John Bean wrote:
[]
Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
we say *everybody* is lying.

Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think there
should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B components
and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different standard
viewfinders.

Cheers,
David

In article , says...
John Bean wrote:
[]
Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
we say *everybody* is lying.

Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think there
should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B components
and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different standard
viewfinders.

Cheers,
David




Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of the camera
with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges comparison.

The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished photograph,
which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.

The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as such. It
is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera resolution, but
until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is labeled isnt going to
help.

If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD monitor on
your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it with an EVF????

What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good enough to
use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO.

Is it likely to be better in the near future??? NO!

Logic and reason needs to be used in the purchase of a digital camera (just
like when you buy anything else).

No camera manufacturer claims a full resolution EVF simply because they dont
exist, and are not likely to exist with current technology.

Its the major difference between a "ZLR" camera and a DSLR camera, and one of
the biggest reasons that a lot of people went DSLR.

With a DSLR you get a reflection of the actual image in the viewfinder NOT an
electronic reconstruction of the view. In order to get this, you must
sacrifice "live preview" and histograms (the histograms are only available on
REVIEW in a DSLR)

All things being equal the highest pixel count in an EVF will be the highest
resolution. The only time there would be any confusion in this area would be
if the manufacturers started counting them differently.

The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change it, the
highest number is STILL the highest number.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Larry wrote:
In article ,
says...
John Bean wrote:
[]
Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
we say *everybody* is lying.

Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think
there should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B
components and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different
standard viewfinders.

Cheers,
David




Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of the
camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges
comparison.

Yes, I agree. The camera typically has sensor quads (e.g. GRGB) and
interpolates to pixel quads, resulting in an 8MP camera having 2MP red,
2MP blue and 4MP green (arrangements can vary). The typical 1024 x 768
display has 786,432 sites each providing independant R, G and B pixels.

The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished
photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.

I think there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the consumer.

The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as
such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera
resolution, but until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is
labeled isnt going to help.

If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD
monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it
with an EVF????

Yes, you can put 9.2 Mpixels on the desktop:

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/

although you do need 22.1 inches to reach that incredible resolution!

What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good
enough to use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO.

Is it likely to be better in the near future??? NO!

Logic and reason needs to be used in the purchase of a digital camera
(just like when you buy anything else).

No camera manufacturer claims a full resolution EVF simply because
they dont exist, and are not likely to exist with current technology.

Its the major difference between a "ZLR" camera and a DSLR camera,
and one of the biggest reasons that a lot of people went DSLR.

With a DSLR you get a reflection of the actual image in the
viewfinder NOT an electronic reconstruction of the view. In order to
get this, you must sacrifice "live preview" and histograms (the
histograms are only available on REVIEW in a DSLR)

All things being equal the highest pixel count in an EVF will be the
highest resolution. The only time there would be any confusion in
this area would be if the manufacturers started counting them
differently.

The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change
it, the highest number is STILL the highest number.

Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen
to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200
pixels, not "900,000 pixels" as promoted by one manufacturer. Being
honest about the display resolution is something the consumer deserves, I
believe.

I do agree with you that this is one area of the EVF that needs drastic
improvement.

Cheers,
David

In article , says...
Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen
to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200
pixels, not "900,000 pixels" as promoted by one manufacturer. Being
honest about the display resolution is something the consumer deserves, I
believe.

I do agree with you that this is one area of the EVF that needs drastic
improvement.

Cheers,
David



I think you may have missed the point I was making (because I was making it
badly).

The point is this:

At this time its NOT POSSIBLE to cram as many pixels into the space it takes
for an EVF as we would like to have.

There is at this time a limit on the "dot pitch" of the screen, and they just
cant make the dots small enough to raise the resolution of an EVF to where it
truly needs to be.

I grant you that some manufacturers cloud the issue by telling us the number
of "color dots" they have and calling them "pixels", but most of us are smart
enough to know better.

Ya' gotta' recognize "sales hype" for what it is. I dont consider a camera
to be good or bad by how it lives up to its "HYPE", I judge it by the
pictures I get from it.

Here is a "for instance".. Fuji sells its S7000 as a camera that can produce
12 mpixel images... and it can produce them, but its NOT a 12 mpixel camera,
its a 6 mpixel camera (and a damn fine one when its used properly).

I bought one, and sometimes (only sometimes) I actually let the raw converter
in Photoshop interpolate the image to 12 mpixels.. Most of the time I stick
with the 6 mpixel file, and if I need it bigger, I make it bigger LATER, with
the apropriate software, which does a better job than the raw converter.
(usually Genuine Fractals).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Larry wrote:
In article ,

says...
John Bean wrote:
[]
Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies
if
we say *everybody* is lying.

Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think
there should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B
components and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a
different
standard viewfinders.

Cheers,
David




Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of
the
camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges
comparison.

The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished
photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.

The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as
such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera
resolution, but until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is
labeled isnt going to help.

If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD
monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it
with an EVF????


I don't think that anyone would really need the full resolution of a
6-8 meg image in an eyepiece. Indeed, I don't think many people's eyes
could resolve that. The question is what resolution would be needed in
a satisfactory viewfinder. I don't think any ZLR has attained that but
I wonder if about twice that provided by Minolta would suffice. I
don't own one but examining one in store persuades me they have not
far to go.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA