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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. -hh |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let others do the ground-work. Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through the lense view camera. all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras. none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs available. See http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/..._F707_back.jpg See that funny thing at the top-left of the back of the camera? It's an eye-piece. so what? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... .... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ....and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. Try one some day. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... OK! Once you do that get back to us. My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. One net effect from ditching the mirror and shutter is that the camera's now a staring system rather than a metered system. In digital incarnations of staring systems, the performance of the data management system becomes quite significant ... and for high performance, high bandwidth which means that it becomes quite computationally expensive. Similarly, inclusion of a second image path in parallel for a so-called "real-time" viewfinder also incurs additional data bus bandwidth & demands on computational power. There is no free lunch. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ...and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. That you know of. Try one some day. Oh, that may become quite likely, as I got a 'headhunter' call last Friday asking about my availability later this year to take over part of a project that's working in this area. Apparently, they really liked my suggestion that they could just buy $50K worth of these current commercial products off-the-shelf with which to do some surrogate tests could get a quick reality check on their performance requirements and chop a year off of their schedule, and they're looking at me to go do just that. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Sounds good from an advertising copy perspective, but this isn't refresh rate either. The question is just how many milliseconds worth of processing delay is there from data capture of frame N to the actual display of frame N on the EVF? You don't know. And no, it isn't 1/100 = 10msec, because there can be multiple frames' in-process in the buffers before it finally gets to be the frame that's pushed out to the EVF display. As I said, the Devil is in the Details. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Except that there's no firm requirement that a MILC must contain an eye level viewfinder. And given how commonplace for there to be a rear screen too does illustrate that the OEMs do expect their users to not always employ the eye level one. As such, my comments about sun angle & display washout aren't irrelevant. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... OK! Once you do that get back to us. My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. -hh |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe the Canon, & Nikon engineers have been looking at the Sony, and Fujifilm cameras, and are asking themselves, "how did they do that?" If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. One net effect from ditching the mirror and shutter is that the camera's now a staring system rather than a metered system. In digital incarnations of staring systems, the performance of the data management system becomes quite significant ... and for high performance, high bandwidth which means that it becomes quite computationally expensive. WTF do you mean "staring system"? MILCs meter off the sensor, and have processors more than capable of handling the data fed to/through them. The current Fujifilm CPU is a powerful multi-core processor. Similarly, inclusion of a second image path in parallel for a so-called "real-time" viewfinder also incurs additional data bus bandwidth & demands on computational power. A second image path in parallel sound more like a traditional SLR/DSLR than any MILC. There is no free lunch. Not even for SLR/DSLRs. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ...and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. That you know of. That I know of, because I use one. Try one some day. Oh, that may become quite likely, as I got a 'headhunter' call last Friday asking about my availability later this year to take over part of a project that's working in this area. Apparently, they really liked my suggestion that they could just buy $50K worth of these current commercial products off-the-shelf with which to do some surrogate tests could get a quick reality check on their performance requirements and chop a year off of their schedule, and they're looking at me to go do just that. You better go ahead and take the job. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Sounds good from an advertising copy perspective, but this isn't refresh rate either. The question is just how many milliseconds worth of processing delay is there from data capture of frame N to the actual display of frame N on the EVF? The EVF refresh rate is 100 fps. Display time lag is 0.005 sec. You don't know. ....and your experience with these cameras, other than an opinion you hold, is what? And no, it isn't 1/100 = 10msec, because there can be multiple frames' in-process in the buffers before it finally gets to be the frame that's pushed out to the EVF display. ....and when shooting multiple frames in CH/CL, or an AE bracket (3-9 frames), or any of the other bracket options, the buffer clears very quickly after writing to the SD card. As to the image in the EVF display, there is no perceptible delay, not even as much as I have experienced with my D300S and its mirror blackout. As I said, the Devil is in the Details. Which you have not examined, just opined on. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Except that there's no firm requirement that a MILC must contain an eye level viewfinder. And given how commonplace for there to be a rear screen too does illustrate that the OEMs do expect their users to not always employ the eye level one. As such, my comments about sun angle & display washout aren't irrelevant. I would have thought by now you would have grasped that I have been referring to MILCs which have an eye-level EVF. Certainly one has the option of using the LCD display as a VF, just as DSLR users have the option to use the LCD display on their cameras in Liveview. As to Sun angle and display washout, one would believe that any MILC, or DSLR shooter would make sensible decisions as to when they would exercise their option to use either EVF/OVF, or LCD Liveview display. Try one some time you might be surprised. Eventually, I will ... it just been a too-busy year... OK! Once you do that get back to us. My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D -- Regards, Savageduck |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:20:21 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let others do the ground-work. Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through the lense view camera. all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras. none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs available. See http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/..._F707_back.jpg See that funny thing at the top-left of the back of the camera? It's an eye-piece. so what? Not "all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras". Many (most?) of them have made use of rear view screens, but the Sony F707 (and befoe that the F505) make use of an eye piece using an electronic view via the lens. This was well before the Panasonic G1. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:20:21 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let others do the ground-work. Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through the lense view camera. all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras. none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs available. See http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/..._F707_back.jpg See that funny thing at the top-left of the back of the camera? It's an eye-piece. so what? Not "all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras". Many (most?) of them have made use of rear view screens, but the Sony F707 (and befoe that the F505) make use of an eye piece using an electronic view via the lens. This was well before the Panasonic G1. There was also Nikon's first effort at camera with an EVF back in 2002, the CP5700. While interesting, and capable of generating NEFs it was more of a"Super Zoom" than a MILC. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700 Strangely enough it came with the flipout LCD that so many complained was missing from the new Nikon Z6 & Z7. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: TEN YEARS late. The Panasonic G1 was launched in 2007. Nikon and Canon let others do the ground-work. Sony released the F707 in April 2000. That was a mirrorless through the lense view camera. all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras. none of them are view cameras, although there are scanning backs available. See http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/..._F707_back.jpg See that funny thing at the top-left of the back of the camera? It's an eye-piece. so what? Not "all non-slr digital cameras are mirrorless through the lens cameras". orly? where's the mirror? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...606-coolpix-95 0.jpg https://static.bhphoto.com/images/im...6c001_powersho t_g7_x_mark_1455767513000_1223211.jpg https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/271618-kodak-easyshare-c1530.jpg mirrorless means no mirror. slrs have mirrors. the above cameras do not. Many (most?) of them have made use of rear view screens, yes, many do have rear displays. very good. however, that doesn't change the fact that there is no mirror and that the rear display is looking through the actual lens that will be used to take the photos. but the Sony F707 (and befoe that the F505) make use of an eye piece using an electronic view via the lens. This was well before the Panasonic G1. again, so what? the only difference is that the rear display is smaller and has an eyepiece in front of it. in both cases, it's reading directly off the sensor, looking *through* *the* *lens* (that's bold, btw). and an eyepiece can always be added, such as this: https://www.ephotozine.com/articles/...0/images/Hoodm an_hooloupe_fixing.jpg |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe ... Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless". If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs. For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which our purchase decision was based on. Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera? No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6), and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec. One net effect from ditching the mirror and shutter is that the camera's now a staring system rather than a metered system. In digital incarnations of staring systems, the performance of the data management system becomes quite significant ... and for high performance, high bandwidth which means that it becomes quite computationally expensive. WTF do you mean "staring system"? It means you're trying to lecture the wrong person. MILCs meter off the sensor, and have processors more than capable of handling the data fed to/through them. The current Fujifilm CPU is a powerful multi-core processor. Nice ad copy -- where's the manufacturer's published specifications? Similarly, inclusion of a second image path in parallel for a so-called "real-time" viewfinder also incurs additional data bus bandwidth & demands on computational power. A second image path in parallel sound more like a traditional SLR/DSLR than any MILC. Not really, since it is parallel in real time and a flopping reflex mirror doesn't do that. But because even a blind squirrel does occasionally find a nut, I will give you a partial credit, since a suitably parallelized approach has been featured in SLR's, although it never was particularly popular. This was the use of the Pellicle Mirror in lieu of a reflex mirror, such as in the Canon EOS RT. There is no free lunch. Not even for SLR/DSLRs. Of course not. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ...and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. That you know of. That I know of, because I use one. Personal Anecdote. What does the OEM's detailed technical specifications say? No, not their mere ad copy for consumers... Try one some day. Oh, that may become quite likely, as I got a 'headhunter' call last Friday asking about my availability later this year to take over part of a project that's working in this area. Apparently, they really liked my suggestion that they could just buy $50K worth of these current commercial products off-the-shelf with which to do some surrogate tests could get a quick reality check on their performance requirements and chop a year off of their schedule, and they're looking at me to go do just that. You better go ahead and take the job. We'll see. I'm currently managing a group of PhDs in a human subject research lab and next year's work here is looking at [recused]. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Sounds good from an advertising copy perspective, but this isn't refresh rate either. The question is just how many milliseconds worth of processing delay is there from data capture of frame N to the actual display of frame N on the EVF? The EVF refresh rate is 100 fps. Display time lag is 0.005 sec. And here's an example of how advertising copy allows people to be deceived. Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor. The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen. That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected. From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete 'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - - and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to the EVF for display. The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it? Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say? You don't know. ...and your experience with these cameras, other than an opinion you hold, is what? Besides a couple of Engineering degrees, professional experience, a bunch of stuff that I'm not authorized to talk about, and even a job offer to research, test & invariably write the technical performance specifications for a new piece of digital imaging hardware that's looking to use the likes of your shiny camera as just a cheap test mule? Oh, utterly nothing, of course! /S And no, it isn't 1/100 = 10msec, because there can be multiple frames' in-process in the buffers before it finally gets to be the frame that's pushed out to the EVF display. ...and when shooting multiple frames in CH/CL, or an AE bracket (3-9 frames), or any of the other bracket options, the buffer clears very quickly after writing to the SD card. There's still a buffer. What's the OEM technical specifications say it is? As to the image in the EVF display, there is no perceptible delay, not even as much as I have experienced with my D300S and its mirror blackout. Well, on human perception & performance, the biology of the human nervous system is such that we live ~250ms in the past. As I said, the Devil is in the Details. Which you have not examined, just opined on. No, I've merely shared what I can, and have shown some principles of physics that you can't violate, even if the advertising copy suggests otherwise. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Except that there's no firm requirement that a MILC must contain an eye level viewfinder. And given how commonplace for there to be a rear screen too does illustrate that the OEMs do expect their users to not always employ the eye level one. As such, my comments about sun angle & display washout aren't irrelevant. I would have thought by now you would have grasped that I have been referring to MILCs which have an eye-level EVF. Oh, I've certainly grasped that you're talking within a very narrow box. In several ways more than you realize, though. [...] My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? See above: "My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..." In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three. You also need: 2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck. 3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination. If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens. For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they sell a body for your MILC model. Then, go he https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts ....and identify just what lenses are supported. FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations. -hh |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh wrote: On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote: -hh said: wrote: The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a separate path via flip up mirror ? It depends. First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal power (battery). ...and so the MILCs which work do just that. Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme". WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"? I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating for MILC hardware. You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities of any MILC. Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed, these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more than a decade ago. Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different things. You had better believe ... Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless". If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago. That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs. For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which our purchase decision was based on. Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera? No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6), and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec. Now I am curious, what was this pioneering MILC with astonishing shutter speed (that most photographers would probably never use). Of my cameras the X-T2 has a fastest mechanical shutter speed of 1/8000, and electronic shutter speed of 1/32,000. Other than the occasional equipment experiment I have never needed to push to either extreme. One net effect from ditching the mirror and shutter is that the camera's now a staring system rather than a metered system. In digital incarnations of staring systems, the performance of the data management system becomes quite significant ... and for high performance, high bandwidth which means that it becomes quite computationally expensive. WTF do you mean "staring system"? It means you're trying to lecture the wrong person. Apparently. MILCs meter off the sensor, and have processors more than capable of handling the data fed to/through them. The current Fujifilm CPU is a powerful multi-core processor. Nice ad copy -- where's the manufacturer's published specifications? Similarly, inclusion of a second image path in parallel for a so-called "real-time" viewfinder also incurs additional data bus bandwidth & demands on computational power. A second image path in parallel sound more like a traditional SLR/DSLR than any MILC. Not really, since it is parallel in real time and a flopping reflex mirror doesn't do that. But because even a blind squirrel does occasionally find a nut, I will give you a partial credit, since a suitably parallelized approach has been featured in SLR's, although it never was particularly popular. This was the use of the Pellicle Mirror in lieu of a reflex mirror, such as in the Canon EOS RT. There is no free lunch. Not even for SLR/DSLRs. Of course not. Second, an LCD display isn’t always a good thing to view through, as there’s lag for example, which degrades tracking performance of moving targets. The classical optical path operates at 186,000 miles/second, which is a few femtoseconds, whereas the digital display replacement requires photon to electron reception on the CCD, followed by a data read, then data transmit, data processing, another transmit, & finally to be redisplayed. Even with current technology still takes bunches of milliseconds...and try to see where this metric even listed in product reviews: it’s already been found that in 3D VR simulators this delay often causes nausea in human subject research volunteers (and thus, limits/affects experimental designs). What are you trying to say? We are not discussing 3D VR simulators. The 3D VR sim stuff has been published in Open Literature. Other stuff hasn't been published, so it can't be discussed in this forum. So what? The issue of temporal lag doesn't typically manifest itself today in relatively benign (quasi-static) photographic shooting situations So... ... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it will remain unimportant. The more that the engagement timeline accelerates (faster subject movement & system track/panning, etc), the more critical the processing time becomes in system performance, as well as the more that the temporal mis-synchronization between sensory inputs will mess up the human. That's why I said "what's the published performance data?". ...and cameras such as the X-H1, X-T2, and the new X-T3 have no problem with faster subject movement, & system track/panning, etc.. That you know of. That I know of, because I use one. Personal Anecdote. So, sometimes personal experience counts. What does the OEM's detailed technical specifications say? No, not their mere ad copy for consumers... Beyond the published specs which are freely available from various review sites, I am not privy to "detailed technical specifications" after all I am but a consumer. Try one some day. Oh, that may become quite likely, as I got a 'headhunter' call last Friday asking about my availability later this year to take over part of a project that's working in this area. Apparently, they really liked my suggestion that they could just buy $50K worth of these current commercial products off-the-shelf with which to do some surrogate tests could get a quick reality check on their performance requirements and chop a year off of their schedule, and they're looking at me to go do just that. You better go ahead and take the job. We'll see. I'm currently managing a group of PhDs in a human subject research lab and next year's work here is looking at [recused]. Busy, busy, busy. Have you tried one of the latest MILCs such as the X-T2, X-H1, or the Sony a7III? ...and then there are the latest releases such as the X-T3 where there is no blackout even at 30fps. This isn't about blackout. MILCs today such as my X-T2 have EVF refresh rate of 100 fps. Sounds good from an advertising copy perspective, but this isn't refresh rate either. The question is just how many milliseconds worth of processing delay is there from data capture of frame N to the actual display of frame N on the EVF? The EVF refresh rate is 100 fps. Display time lag is 0.005 sec. And here's an example of how advertising copy allows people to be deceived. Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor. The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen. ....and that matters not one bit when it comes to actually using whichever camera the photographer, including yours truly, is using since I don't usually carry a full test bench with me on any shoot. I suspect that it doesn't matter that much to you when it comes to your photography. That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected. From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete 'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - - and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to the EVF for display. ....and I have yet to have that "time-sampled period" be critical in any digital camera I have used. The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it? Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say? Again I do not have that data sheet. You don't know. ...and your experience with these cameras, other than an opinion you hold, is what? Besides a couple of Engineering degrees, professional experience, a bunch of stuff that I'm not authorized to talk about, and even a job offer to research, test & invariably write the technical performance specifications for a new piece of digital imaging hardware that's looking to use the likes of your shiny camera as just a cheap test mule? Oh, utterly nothing, of course! /S That's nice. And no, it isn't 1/100 = 10msec, because there can be multiple frames' in-process in the buffers before it finally gets to be the frame that's pushed out to the EVF display. ...and when shooting multiple frames in CH/CL, or an AE bracket (3-9 frames), or any of the other bracket options, the buffer clears very quickly after writing to the SD card. There's still a buffer. What's the OEM technical specifications say it is? As to the image in the EVF display, there is no perceptible delay, not even as much as I have experienced with my D300S and its mirror blackout. Well, on human perception & performance, the biology of the human nervous system is such that we live ~250ms in the past. As I said, the Devil is in the Details. Which you have not examined, just opined on. No, I've merely shared what I can, and have shown some principles of physics that you can't violate, even if the advertising copy suggests otherwise. Similarly, in pragmatic field use, one classical photography principle is to put the sun at your back ... but this means that the sun is now positioned so that it will illuminate your LCD display & degrade its readability unless it’s shaded - such as being designed with the same eyepiece cup as classical SLR’s. FYI, shooting during Golden Hours results in a much lower sun angle which can accentuate this as a problem...the outcome is that the photographer needs to have a big fat head to make shade to see what he’s framing. You do understand that MILCs have an EVF which is used in much the same way the traditional OVF is used on a DSLR. I've not checked specific products, but that's precisely why I mentioned the eyepiece in the above: that's the only simple way to assure that the electronic VF won't get messed up by sun ... although there's still also other factors. Of course you haven't checked specific products, it doesn't sound as if you have ever considered any MILC. Just remember, an MILC is not a phone camera, or a P&S/compact without an eye level VF. Except that there's no firm requirement that a MILC must contain an eye level viewfinder. And given how commonplace for there to be a rear screen too does illustrate that the OEMs do expect their users to not always employ the eye level one. As such, my comments about sun angle & display washout aren't irrelevant. I would have thought by now you would have grasped that I have been referring to MILCs which have an eye-level EVF. Oh, I've certainly grasped that you're talking within a very narrow box. In several ways more than you realize, though. [...] My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing that I'm currently using. Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs. But of course. The main issue that I had with the current dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup. My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V; the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is a huge difference in UW. How wide do you want to go? See above: "My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..." In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4. Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm f/2.8 Zero-D Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three. You also need: 2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck. Yup. 3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination. If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens. Yup For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they sell a body for your MILC model. Then, go he https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts ...and identify just what lenses are supported. For my particular camera Ikelite does not build a housing. However, Aquatech, Nauticam, Subal, and Meikon do. Perhaps not Ikelite, but capable. https://aquatech.net/collections/fujifilm/products/atb-xt2-camera-water-housing-kit https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-il-camera-housings/products/na-xt2-housing-for-fujifilm-x-t2-camera http://subal.com https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/products/fujifilm-x-t2-40m-130ft-underwater-camera-housing-kit-with-seafrogs-dry-dome-port-v-1 FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations. Alternatives provided above. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital SLRs | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | March 9th 08 12:07 AM |
P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 109 | August 4th 07 05:10 AM |
When does SLR start to make sense ? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 39 | November 17th 06 06:09 AM |
Why these deep-set grips make little sense | Rich | Digital Photography | 15 | March 2nd 06 08:37 PM |
Do full frame sensors make sense for you? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 62 | June 7th 05 12:58 PM |