A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 09, 12:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

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

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

When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000 "real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.
  #2  
Old October 15th 09, 03:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

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

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

When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).


Yes, I wanted clarification of that as well.

That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000 "real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.


... and even then, the EVF will use a lot more power than the optical
finder, and hence reduce battery life. I would be delighted with smaller
and lighter cameras, but still want a good viewfinder and phase-detect
auto-focus.

David

  #3  
Old October 15th 09, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

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

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


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).


Yes, I wanted clarification of that as well.

That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real" pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.


.. and even then, the EVF will use a lot more power than the optical
finder, and hence reduce battery life. I would be delighted with
smaller and lighter cameras, but still want a good viewfinder and
phase-detect auto-focus.

More pixels = more data to process per frame, which means more lag
and/or slower refresh rates. Moore's law probably applies, but we're
many iterations at 18 months per cycle before EVF is satisfactory. I
don't expect a good (enough for full OVF replacement) one to arrive
until about 2015 ot later. But in the meantime, EVF has some
advantages. I'd like a dslr with interchangeable prism so that you
could fit an EVF "prism" when needed, and in that mode, mirror would be
locked up. Either that, or perhaps someone could make a small EVF that
fits on the flash mount, and has a short cable that connects to the
camera's HDMI-out in LV mode. I don't find LV using rear LCD to be much
practical use with heavy dslr/lens combinations, except occasionally for
tripod use.
  #4  
Old October 16th 09, 08:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin


"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.


Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.


... but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels pushed by
some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.

David

  #5  
Old October 17th 09, 03:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000 "real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.


Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.


.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels pushed
by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.


HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #6  
Old October 17th 09, 05:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 796
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.


.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.


HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something that
needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact battery
powered device.
  #7  
Old October 17th 09, 06:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

Me wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 7:26 am, Me wrote:
RichA wrote:
Courtesy of Epson. This is similar to the Panasonic unit in the G
cameras I think.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...exploit_boomin...


When they say 1.44 million pixel, they probably mean 800x600 "real"
pixels x 3 (R&G&B).
That's not enough for OVF replacement. Something about 3000x2000
"real"
pixels would be good, but IMO that's going to be years away.

Most people's vision isn't good enough to make use of 6 megapixels of
viewfinder resolution.
With a life size image (say a 50mm lens on a full frame DSLR) you
can't see all the detail that thing is putting through.

.. but you can certainly manage more than the ~400 x ~300 pixels
pushed by some as "high-resolution" replacements for optical finders.


HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).

It probably is.
How much GPU power is needed to drive 1080 HD at 30 fps with low lag
time? 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 3 x 8 bits is a lot of data. Something that
needs cooling fins isn't going to be much use for a compact battery
powered device.


Yep, hence the suggestion to improve DSLRs with an EVF switch. The
advantages of EVF don't require high res if you can flip freely between
optical and digital. In some ways the digital preview is more useful at
very low resolutions, like for example light meters, and more
specifically the idea of getting a realistic squint reality check on
your composition and exposure. It probably doesn't take many pixels to
build a reliable live histogram. That's what you want in the viewfinder
when twisting the aperture ring, or maybe DOF preview, depending on the
situation.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #8  
Old October 17th 09, 08:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
HD video is probably a reasonable standard to strive for.
1920x1080 (less for 2:3 ratio).


1440 x 1080 would allow for a small band at the bottom for status
information etc. It sounds like we looking at somewhat more than 1MP (of
RGB triples) to approach an optical finder.

Cheers,
David

  #9  
Old October 17th 09, 08:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
Yep, hence the suggestion to improve DSLRs with an EVF switch. The
advantages of EVF don't require high res if you can flip freely between
optical and digital. In some ways the digital preview is more useful at
very low resolutions, like for example light meters, and more
specifically the idea of getting a realistic squint reality check on
your composition and exposure. It probably doesn't take many pixels to
build a reliable live histogram. That's what you want in the viewfinder
when twisting the aperture ring, or maybe DOF preview, depending on the
situation.


With many DSLRs now having Live View you almost have that.

Cheers,
David

  #10  
Old October 17th 09, 09:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:46:49 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
[]
Yep, hence the suggestion to improve DSLRs with an EVF switch. The
advantages of EVF don't require high res if you can flip freely
between
optical and digital. In some ways the digital preview is more useful
at
very low resolutions, like for example light meters, and more
specifically the idea of getting a realistic squint reality check on
your composition and exposure. It probably doesn't take many pixels to
build a reliable live histogram. That's what you want in the
viewfinder
when twisting the aperture ring, or maybe DOF preview, depending on
the
situation.


With many DSLRs now having Live View you almost have that.



"Almost" is optimistic. There isn't yet a Live View screen, nor an
electronic viewfinder (EVF) that adequately displays depth of field.

To be fair, few if any optical reflex viewfinders will display DOF
unless you change the focusing screen. The aftermarket focusing
screens designed for manual focusing do a far better job of displaying
the fall-off of focusing sharpness, but they still aren't perfect.

Still, my Nikon D700 with Katz Eye screen does a far better job than
any Live View screen or EVF can.


Bruce, agreed, but Paul was suggesting the EVF/LCD for "very low
resolutions". With today's DSLRs you have both the Live View for that,
and the optical when you prefer that (as I do ~98% of the time).

DoF preview, as you say, is not often offered, and unless you change the
screen, may not be very accurate.

David

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin Mike GW8IJT Digital SLR Cameras 213 October 28th 09 03:27 AM
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin Mr. Strat Digital Photography 8 October 23rd 09 12:46 AM
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin Geoff Berrow Digital Photography 35 October 22nd 09 02:12 PM
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin Mr. Strat Digital Photography 1 October 15th 09 07:54 PM
One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin Mike Russell[_3_] Digital Photography 1 October 15th 09 02:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.