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

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

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

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.

"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

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

On 16 Oct 2009 17:26:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

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.

Good, fast, or cheap - pick two.

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

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

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:13:24 -0400, John A. wrote
in :

On 16 Oct 2009 17:26:12 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

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.

Good, fast, or cheap - pick two.

With a top compact digital you can have all three.

I'm looking forward to EVF cameras, but I've never seen a compact with an
EVF that could match an optical viewfinder. Best I've seen is the GH1, but
even that's not as good as optical.