One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_290520.html

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.
Mike.

"Mike GW8IJT" writes:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror adds hugely to the size
of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of film days and
should be abandoned asap.

What, you think it just didn't occur to them?

There are reasons why mirror-based DSLRs have persisted, e.g. sucky
electronic viewfinders and the slothlike speed of contrast-based
autofocus. Eventually the technical problems will be solved adequately,
and EVF designs will probably take over (hopefully with something better
than Oly's 4:3 sensor).

-Miles

--
`The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement'

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, Mike GW8IJT wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_290520.html

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.
Mike.

This is true. There are market forces at work that will make this happen,
eventually.

In the meantime, there's a lot of legacy glass out there, and legacy
production lines that can make pentaprism-based cameras very cheaply. This
will take years to go away. When it does, digital photography will take
another quantum leap in quality, price, and compactness.

As an example, consider the advantages of a non-planar sensor that is built
into the rear element of a lens, a variable density sensor that provides
constant pixel density over a digital zoom range, non-rectangular pixels,
or bayer-style patterns with more than three colors - perhaps extending to
UV and IR.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, "Mike GW8IJT"
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.

And replaced with what?
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, "Mike GW8IJT"
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting
mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic
of
film days and should be abandoned asap.

And replaced with what?
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

See the original message.
The electronic viewfinder will eventually rule!

In article , Mike GW8IJT
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.

You photography noobs need to get a clue. There is benefit to having a
camera that's larger than a credit card. And EVFs are for losers.

In article , Mike Russell
wrote:

In the meantime, there's a lot of legacy glass out there, and legacy
production lines that can make pentaprism-based cameras very cheaply. This
will take years to go away. When it does, digital photography will take
another quantum leap in quality, price, and compactness.

you have that backwards. the technology needs to make the leap before
optical viewfinders are replaced.

evfs are currently too slow, especially in dim light and phase detect
autofocus is much faster than contrast detect. you won't be able to
have a 9+ fps camera like the nikon d3s with evf and contrast detect
autofocus any time soon. legacy glass is irrelevant, that could still
be used on any camera, optical viewfinder or not.

As an example, consider the advantages of a non-planar sensor that is built
into the rear element of a lens,

curved sensor? not gonna happen. and where's the rest of the circuitry?

a variable density sensor that provides
constant pixel density over a digital zoom range,

how is that going to be made, let alone work?

non-rectangular pixels,

nikon tried that, what a mess.

or bayer-style patterns with more than three colors - perhaps extending to
UV and IR.

already been done, and very few people want uv/ir sensitivity.

Mike GW8IJT wrote:
"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, "Mike GW8IJT"
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting
mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a relic
of
film days and should be abandoned asap.
And replaced with what?

See the original message.
The electronic viewfinder will eventually rule!

If by rule you mean become the majority viewfinder on digital cameras,
we're already there. If you mean the best of the best, it remains to be
seen.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
Mike GW8IJT wrote:
"Geoff Berrow" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:23:23 +0100, "Mike GW8IJT"
wrote:

I find it amazing that digital SLRs can still use a lifting mirror
and a
pentamirror for a viewfinder. The compartment that holds the lifting
mirror
adds hugely to the size of the camera. The optical viewfinder is a
relic of
film days and should be abandoned asap.
And replaced with what?

See the original message.
The electronic viewfinder will eventually rule!

If by rule you mean become the majority viewfinder on digital cameras,
we're already there. If you mean the best of the best, it remains to be
seen.


You mean TLR isn't the ultimate?

BugBear

Say an interesting article recently that observed that people
with cameras with optical viewfinders and that used them had a
significantly less picture failure rate.

Why?

Because it is not natural to hold something out in front of you
when taking a picture and such a stance is inherently unstable.
Hold the camera up to your eye and it and you are both more
stable, there is less chance of the camera moving when you press
the shutter release, and as you will likely hold the camera there
until after the picture has been taken there is less likelihood
of moving the camera during shutter lag. Ergo, less failed
pictures.

My wife used a Konica Minolta S2 (IMSMC) which had a screen and
an EVF. Her picture failure rate with the screen (the poor
resolution of the EVF proved to be annoying) was awful: now she
has a Nikon D50 and has yet to have a pic fail.



--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com