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
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
Woody wrote:
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. I much prefer the DSLR viewfinder to an EVF I have on my fuji or the live view on my compact, but eventually the speed and quality of the EVF will spell doom for the viewfinder. Ridding the camera of moving parts is not a bad thing. Mike |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
Woody wrote:
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. I think you meant A2. And the resolution of the Evf was very high, But the tilting EVF used on the previous models was of more use. The floating auto focus was More the cause of Failures |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
Mike GW8IJT wrote:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror adds hugely to the size of the camera. Not necessarily: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/ -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
Paul Furman writes:
The compartment that holds the lifting mirror adds hugely to the size of the camera. Not necessarily: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/ Yeah, looking at some SLRs from the glory-days of film is very instructive for people that think that DSLRs are bloated because of the mount/mirror-box/pentaprism. They're not. They're bloated for various reasons -- big battery, focusing motor (tho not canon!), big screen, lots of electronics, freeping-creaturism (e.g. pretty much every DLSR has a bad-quality flash wedged in on top of the pentaprism), etc -- but in part it seems that people sort of _expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes them seem "professional"?). Making something smaller is harder, but if fashion dictated that DSLRs all be small and svelte, you can be damned sure the manufacturers would be trying harder to make them that way... -Miles -- Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. "That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
"Miles Bader" wrote in message ... Paul Furman writes: The compartment that holds the lifting mirror adds hugely to the size of the camera. Not necessarily: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7622595498100/ Yeah, looking at some SLRs from the glory-days of film is very instructive for people that think that DSLRs are bloated because of the mount/mirror-box/pentaprism. They're not. They're bloated for various reasons -- big battery, focusing motor (tho not canon!), big screen, lots of electronics, freeping-creaturism (e.g. pretty much every DLSR has a bad-quality flash wedged in on top of the pentaprism), etc -- but in part it seems that people sort of _expect_ DSLRs to be big and bloated (maybe they somehow think it makes them seem "professional"?). Making something smaller is harder, but if fashion dictated that DSLRs all be small and svelte, you can be damned sure the manufacturers would be trying harder to make them that way... Shape is mainly because its been retained from film days, and the first DSLR's were film camera's with digital backs.. all my camera choices were made on feel of the camera in the hand.. now I am sure some of these "credit card" camera's (i.e. Canon Ixus) are brilliant, but in my hand they felt too small.. I felt too clumsy to operate it.. however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am awaiting a replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere camera, the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again, can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't like people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket.. (weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have similar rules.. however, the DSLR in its current shape (not the smaller ones). feels right, its "balanced". several manufacturers have tried alternative shapes (Sony amongst them).. but the DSLR buying public saw them as inferior.. purely because they didn't look right.. the shape is not really a fashion, its a dictate. so is the shape down to the manufacturer.. or the consumer, and.. if you had the choice.. would you be the first to stray into a new shape of camera, that differed from what you were used too? change is not always good.. (especially the smaller = assumed better changes).. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:36:50 +0900, Miles Bader wrote in : "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). -The technical problems have been solved - Except for power and resolution and size. -- at most the issue is cost. Snicker. -- Ray Fischer |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
In uk.rec.photo.misc loopy livernose wrote:
however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am awaiting a replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere camera, the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again, can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't like people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket.. (weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have similar Raining, snowing, just keep the camera under your hat. .... or did you mean 'whether'? rules.. -- Chris Green |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
wrote in message ... In uk.rec.photo.misc loopy livernose wrote: however, I have a canon G9, and older canon P n S (A520) and am awaiting a replacement DSLR (see other post). the A520 is a light and small pocket camera, a little dated now, but works well, and is my take anywhere camera, the G9 is Much better, but limited in some things it can do, but again, can go places I'd not get the DSLR in.. (many museums nowadays don't like people taking camera's in etc.. but a camera that fits in a pocket.. (weather you sneakily use it of not)). churches and cathedrals have similar Raining, snowing, just keep the camera under your hat. .... or did you mean 'whether'? oops.. that will teach me to trust the spell checker to correct a typo!! :-S -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another nail in the coffin of digital... | Noons | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | January 4th 09 10:33 PM |
One more nail in the coffin... | Kinon O'Cann | Digital Photography | 7 | June 1st 07 04:22 PM |
One more nail in the coffin... | Kinon O'Cann | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | June 1st 07 04:22 PM |
One more nail in the coffin... | Nicholas O. Lindan | In The Darkroom | 13 | June 1st 07 12:31 PM |