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

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:17:04 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

The D3 is too large to have a place in my future. But I may get
"Live View" in a DSLR anyway since it may trickle down into a future
body, a D90 or its successor. It's nice but not a critical feature
though.


Live View isn't a "critical feature" until you have used it. Once you
have gotten used to Live View, you are unlikely ever again to buy a
DSLR that does not have that feature.

I'm better able to determine for myself whether "Live View" in a
DSLR will be a critical feature or not, having used it in several
P&S cameras for three years. Unlike another rpd'er that comes to
mind, I don't insist that it won't be a critical feature for others.

RichA wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:41 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
RichA wrote:
1/500th sec exposures every 1/30th of a second...In news photography,
how long would stills last?
The exposure times in film/ENG cameras can already be very short, just
sampled at traditional rates (24, 30 fps). (difference between
"sampling frequency" and "exposure time").

News photography has to be adequate to news photography and that's all.

Photography is a deliberate process to an end product. The end product
for "amateurs" or fine art photogs wishing to produce finely detailed
and beautiful images, or pros doing product photography or weddings and
news gatherers with short deadlines all have very different end needs.

--

Wouldn't you describe some sports photos as fine art? Despite the
fact they machine-gun each scene with hundreds of images?

I wasn't trying to cover the vast array of photography in one small
paragraph. The point comes back to what does a PJ need for a news paper
photo: 1000 x 600 pixels at publishing time ... if that.

Some sports photos can indeed qualify as art, perhaps even fine art. If
the form and lighting appeal to the eye for the form and the lighting,
then it could indeed be art. Most sports shooting is documentary of
course, but documentary of competition can be quite dramatic, exciting,
heart stopping. Human endeavour.

Whether you believe it or not, not all sports photogs, indeed few,
"machine gun" their way through every action sequence. But being able
to for some action will inevitably hit pay dirt more often than the
photog trying to guess the decisive moment ... before the athlete has
actually chosen his path in the face of a determined defence.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 07:11:29 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

I thought the D200 LCD & navagation (D80 is presumably the same) was
vastly improved over the D70 and one of the main things I really liked
about that upgrade.

That's nice to know. My D50 doesn't navigate or magnify as well
as my three year old Fuji P&S, so I assume that the D50 is similar
to the D70 in this respect.


If the "Live View" could be transmitted not
just to a remote computer but to a pair of Video Goggles, the need
for a rotating, articulating LCD display wouldn't be as great.

Maybe... the D3 works with an optional wifi adapter the photogs wear on
their belts and the news editor can use remote control software to
browse saved images in several cameras as they continue shooting and
download shots for instant publishing.

Understood. That's why I said "transmitted not just to . . .".
Especially impressive is that Nikon gave the editors the ability to
access multiple feeds. I wonder if Nikon made it even more valuable
by allowing several computers to simultaneously access images from
all of the cameras. Just one additional computer would be valuable
if only for backup purposes. I don't know if the system would have
sufficient bandwidth for this, though.

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

Video on DSLRs.

If it does and I have no choice, then I stick with my current digital
and perhaps revert to film. I have no desire to shoot video, and I
find the LCD screens on any current camera a "preview" at best. I don't
own a P&S because I cant' find one without that dreaded live view
(well, not one reasonably priced) and a decent optical finder instead.
Taking a photograph takes time. Give me a good to excellent optical
finder over any LCD screen I have seen to date. If I wanted to take
movies, I would buy an movie camera. My still cameras are just for
that.
--
Jim

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
On 2007-08-20 21:36:25 -0400, RichA said:

Video on DSLRs.

If it does and I have no choice, then I stick with my current digital and
perhaps revert to film. I have no desire to shoot video, and I find the
LCD screens on any current camera a "preview" at best. I don't own a P&S
because I cant' find one without that dreaded live view (well, not one
reasonably priced) and a decent optical finder instead. Taking a
photograph takes time. Give me a good to excellent optical finder over
any LCD screen I have seen to date. If I wanted to take movies, I would
buy an movie camera. My still cameras are just for that.

What do you care if a DSLR has live preview in addition to an optical
viewfinder, it is not like you would be forced to use the live preview.

FWIW I would love to have live preview, if the screen swivels, much easier
to do shots from waist level that way.



The two of you are certainly different: one takes his time and the other
shoots from the hip. :-)

It seems there are more reasons to like live view (helps focus on
stars, waist level shooting is easier, etc etc) than to dislike (looks
like a movie camera) LOL







On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:12:53 -1000, Scott W
wrote:

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

Video on DSLRs.

If it does and I have no choice, then I stick with my current digital
and perhaps revert to film. I have no desire to shoot video, and I find
the LCD screens on any current camera a "preview" at best. I don't own a
P&S because I cant' find one without that dreaded live view (well, not
one reasonably priced) and a decent optical finder instead. Taking a
photograph takes time. Give me a good to excellent optical finder over
any LCD screen I have seen to date. If I wanted to take movies, I
would buy an movie camera. My still cameras are just for that.

What do you care if a DSLR has live preview in addition to an optical
viewfinder, it is not like you would be forced to use the live preview.

FWIW I would love to have live preview, if the screen swivels, much
easier to do shots from waist level that way.

Scott

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential
is invisible to the eye"
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

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.




On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:38:52 -0700, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom
wrote:


"Scott W" wrote in message
.. .
Jim wrote:
On 2007-08-20 21:36:25 -0400, RichA said:

Video on DSLRs.

If it does and I have no choice, then I stick with my current digital and
perhaps revert to film. I have no desire to shoot video, and I find the
LCD screens on any current camera a "preview" at best. I don't own a P&S
because I cant' find one without that dreaded live view (well, not one
reasonably priced) and a decent optical finder instead. Taking a
photograph takes time. Give me a good to excellent optical finder over
any LCD screen I have seen to date. If I wanted to take movies, I would
buy an movie camera. My still cameras are just for that.

What do you care if a DSLR has live preview in addition to an optical
viewfinder, it is not like you would be forced to use the live preview.

FWIW I would love to have live preview, if the screen swivels, much easier
to do shots from waist level that way.



The two of you are certainly different: one takes his time and the other
shoots from the hip. :-)


"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential
is invisible to the eye"
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

"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




On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:38:52 -0700, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom
wrote:


"Scott W" wrote in message
. ..
Jim wrote:
On 2007-08-20 21:36:25 -0400, RichA said:

Video on DSLRs.

If it does and I have no choice, then I stick with my current digital
and
perhaps revert to film. I have no desire to shoot video, and I find
the
LCD screens on any current camera a "preview" at best. I don't own a
P&S
because I cant' find one without that dreaded live view (well, not one
reasonably priced) and a decent optical finder instead. Taking a
photograph takes time. Give me a good to excellent optical finder over
any LCD screen I have seen to date. If I wanted to take movies, I
would
buy an movie camera. My still cameras are just for that.

What do you care if a DSLR has live preview in addition to an optical
viewfinder, it is not like you would be forced to use the live preview.

FWIW I would love to have live preview, if the screen swivels, much
easier
to do shots from waist level that way.



The two of you are certainly different: one takes his time and the other
shoots from the hip. :-)


"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential
is invisible to the eye"
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

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.

David

"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!