One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

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!

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

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:53:11 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

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.

It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.

What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.

So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.

I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.
Now, be fair, you can't count the nym-shifting pest but once.......!

--
john mcwilliams

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.
So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.
I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.

In your opinion, not in mine.

Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

--
jpmcw

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:22:17 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:01:22 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:57:14 -0400, "Bowser" wrote in
.com:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
It's a matter of personal taste and market demand, and there will always
be people who desperately cling to the past, just as there will be other
people who embrace newer technology and the benefits it brings. A good
EVF already beats an optical viewfinder in many (most?) ways IMHO,
particularly when focusing manually and/or shooting in low light.
What camera has this EVF? Even the GH1 EVF gets slow and grainy in low
light.
So what? It still works better (for me at least) than an OVF.
I think we get it works better for you; however, you'd be in the small
minority on that point.
In your opinion, not in mine.
Of course your opinion will be consistent with, uh, your opinion; just
not the opinion of most others in the x-posted NGs.

In your opinion, not in mine.
You can only speak for yourself.

I can characterize anything I want, based in fact or not. Enough folk
have spoken on the issue to be able to state clearly that your opinion
is a small minority.

--
john mcwilliams

"RichA" wrote in message
...
[]
People need to look past things that have nothing to do with the
functioning of the unit, such as graininess in low light. For one
thing, you can actually SEE the low light image with a G1 (because of
electronic gain), whereas an optical viewfinder might be too dark to
even allow manual focusing.

You still use manual focussing?

David

John Navas wrote:

snip

In your opinion, not in mine.


It's only my opinion, of course, and you may not agree but you're
starting to sound like a politician desperate to avoid the question and
therefore spouting the agreed party line ad infinitum.

--
Regards


Bristolian