Film vs. digital - viewfinders

I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital
cameras that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old
Minolta XG-7 SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when
they showed what the world looked like through its eyes.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed
shutter response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to
find it is out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an
issue with DSLR's?

Unless I am out of auto shutter speed range, I know my XG-7 will fire
when I tell it to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital
cameras that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old
Minolta XG-7 SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when
they showed what the world looked like through its eyes.

The dSLR viewfinders are similar to their film brethren, although sometimes
they show a smaller view (much lower magnification for the same angle of
view lens). The low end dSLRs don't have interchangeable screens so you're
stuck with plain matt with no focus assist.

The consumer cameras often have either swing out LCDs or swivel bodies, so
you can do ground level or overhead shots easily. Some people like that.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed
shutter response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to
find it is out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an
issue with DSLR's?

No. The dSLRs act pretty much like their film brethren in AF speed and
shutter lag.

I find the 300D (and corresponding Canon Rebel/Kiss film models) AF to be
quite amazingly zippy. But coming from MF, I'm easy to please on that
accountg. Still, my impression is that the recent AF systems on even the
low end (d)SLRs are a lot better than SLR AF systems used to be, so you
might be pleasantly surprised.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"richardsfault" wrote in message
...

I have not yet had the fortune to try a DSLR, but lesser digital
cameras that I have used have terrible viewfinders compared to my old
Minolta XG-7 SLR.

Some of the digital viewfinders remind me of "The Terminator" when
they showed what the world looked like through its eyes.
Electronic Viewfinders (or EVF). They are passable in good light, but
usually lack sufficient detail to be any good for manual focus. They also
become near useless in low light situations. real DSLR's have a real
viewscreen the same way that a film SLR does. If they didn't they would just
be SL's not SLR's.

Another annoyance, at least with the lesser digitals, is delayed
shutter response. So often I have clicked on a moving object only to
find it is out of view by the time the picture was taken. Is this an
issue with DSLR's?
No more so than it is with film SLR's. Response time is almost instant,
using it on MF speeds the process. Even low-end digitals can have their
response time improved greatly if you half-press the shutter prior to taking
the photo. half-pressing lets the camera focus, measure light, and charge
the flash, so that when you finish pressing the shutter it can take the
photo almost immediately. Pretty much all digitals that I have used have no
annoying delay if you take this step, yet some of them can take a full
second or more to take the photo if you just press the shutter in one
action.

Unless I am out of auto shutter speed range, I know my XG-7 will fire
when I tell it to!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Some people claim that there's a woman to blame, but I think it's all...

Richard's fault!

Visit the Sounds of the cul-de-sac at www.richardsfault.com