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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |