Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

[Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:28 am    Post subject: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Everybody seems to be raving about this trendy live view feature available on some DSLRs. Excuse me, but I don't get the point. To me, the camera manufacturers are wasting a great deal of research and development resources to allow their DSLRs to be used like point and shoot cameras.

As their name implies, the DSLRs are equipped with a mirror in order to allow the user to see the image through the lens (by the way, this image looks very much alive to me Wink ). As a consequence, the lens image is not available to the sensor and cannot be displayed on the rear LCD. So the mirror has to be swung out of the way in order to display the live view image. The problem is that when the mirror is up, the autofocus doesn't work.

To remedy this, camera manufacturers have invented a new "AF" button: if you press it when the live view is active, the mirror will swing down temporarily to allow for focusing. Which means that you have to "pre-focus" your camera before taking the actual picture, exactly like a manual focus camera Laughing

On some cameras, you can also use a contrast detection feature directly on the live view image. The drawback is that is this autofocus works like on a cheap point and shoot camera: it is painfully slow, as it has to scan the whole distance scale to find the correct setting (the usual autofocus circuitry on a DSLR "knows" which way it has to turn the distance ring to find the correct focus, so it works much faster).

Let's think about this for a while: the purpose of reflex viewing is to allow the photographer to see the image through the lens exactly as it will be captured. So what is the purpose of live view on a reflex camera? Or the other way round: what is the purpose of reflex viewing on a camera offering a detailed LCD image of the actual photograph that will be taken. The reflex mirror only gets in the way of the sensor when viewing the image and it prevents the autofocus to function normally.

I am quite puzzled that no outsider in the camera manufacturing business has never come up with the idea of a digital camera with a full frame sensor (or an APS-C sized sensor), interchangeable lenses and a big LCD screen (VGA resolution like on the last Sony and Nikon DSLRs). No reflex viewing. No autofocus. No automatic diaphragm. As a consequence, there will be no need for complex coupling between the body and the lens, so this camera could use the M42 or Leica M mount... An added bonus of the Leica M mount is that about any lens I can think of could be mounted with an adapter on a camera with a Leica M mount. Also an upscale model could be equipped with a coupled viewfinder/rangefinder, thus allowing to frame and focus easier in very bright light.

To focus, one joystick next to the LCD, just under the right thumb: press the joystick to get instant 12X magnification on the screen; tilt the joystick in any direction to move the zoomed image around. Fast and accurate.

Come on Cosina or Krasnogorsky Zavod! If you subcontract the electronic sub-assemblies to China, the mechanical construction should be simple, so the camera could be offered at a competitive price...

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:04 am    Post subject: Re: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
Everybody seems to be raving about this trendy live view feature available on some DSLRs. Excuse me, but I don't get the point.


I agree that you don't get the point. (It may be trendy but isn't all that new, by the way - both of my earlier digital cameras had it (Canon G1 and Minolta A1). Its fairly late coming to DSLR, I agree. I think the main thing you are missing is that the live digital image can be zoomed, to allow pixel-perfect focus.

Abbazz wrote:
To me, the camera manufacturers are wasting a great deal of research and development resources to allow their DSLRs to be used like point and shoot cameras.

No, thats not really the aim at all.

Abbazz wrote:
As their name implies, the DSLRs are equipped with a mirror in order to allow the user to see the image through the lens

Yes - thus giving mirror-slap blur at shutter speeds around 1/5 to 1/20s, and not allowing some old wide angle lenses to be used.

Abbazz wrote:
(by the way, this image looks very much alive to me Wink ).

Yes, its live and (being optical) it has a fixed 1:1 magnification. Its a rather tiny image. You can see a lot more, I am sure, when you look at the picture on your computer screen?

Abbazz wrote:
As a consequence, the lens image is not available to the sensor and cannot be displayed on the rear LCD. So the mirror has to be swung out of the way in order to display the live view image.

I agree that the mirror is in the way.

Abbazz wrote:
The problem is that when the mirror is up, the autofocus doesn't work.

This being a forum for manual focus lenses, that might not be seen as too much of a problem. But non-slr digital cameras seem to be able to use autofocus just fine so presumably that can be solved for the higher-end, removable lens cameras as well.

Abbazz wrote:
To remedy this, camera manufacturers have invented a new "AF" button: if you press it when the live view is active, the mirror will swing down temporarily to allow for focusing. Which means that you have to "pre-focus" your camera before taking the actual picture, exactly like a manual focus camera Laughing

I think you really miss the point here. Whether LV can be temporarily overridden to go back to AF is kinda irrelevant; if you are using LV then you are examining critical focus on a zoomed area of the scene. Thats not 'pre-focus' by any stretch of the imagination.

Abbazz wrote:
On some cameras, you can also use a contrast detection feature directly on the live view image. The drawback is that is this autofocus works like on a cheap point and shoot camera: it is painfully slow, as it has to scan the whole distance scale to find the correct setting (the usual autofocus circuitry on a DSLR "knows" which way it has to turn the distance ring to find the correct focus, so it works much faster).

Thats interesting - do you have performance figures for how much slower?
But for me, contrast detection is the less useful part of LV. Its the aid to manual focussing which is a lot more interesting (especially for MF lens lovers). Precise and careful manual focus of a tripod-mounted camera is quite unlike 'point and shoot' to me. its more like macro photography with a focussing rail - careful, precise and accurate.

Abbazz wrote:
Let's think about this for a while: the purpose of reflex viewing is to allow the photographer to see the image through the lens exactly as it will be captured.

Agreed. Its a means to an end - the end is seeing exactly what will be captured, and the means (inherited from purely mechanical cameras) is a swinging mirror.
Abbazz wrote:
So what is the purpose of live view on a reflex camera?

Exactly the same purpose - to see exactly what will be captured, on the sensor, through the lens; with the exact focus and depth of field and so on.

Abbazz wrote:
Or the other way round: what is the purpose of reflex viewing on a camera offering a detailed LCD image of the actual photograph that will be taken. The reflex mirror only gets in the way of the sensor when viewing the image and it prevents the autofocus to function normally.

I think that is a very perceptive question and I believe that over time, the term ;'dslr' will be replaced by some other term to indicate quality-oriented cameras that have interchangeable lenses. because sooner or later, that swinging mirror thing is going to have to go. It slows down burst mode shooting, it blurs longer exposures, and the extra indirection of a mirror-intercepted optical image displaying (with its own set of error tolerances) a simulation of what the sensor will capture is less direct, less accurate and less useful than direct, immediate display of exactly what the sensor sees.
I believe that we will first see top-end cameras aimed at studio use, which have no mirror and no optical finder, and indeed no back lcd either. instead they will have some electronic port which hooks up to an external monitor, or a laptop.

Abbazz wrote:
I am quite puzzled that no outsider in the camera manufacturing business has never come up with the idea of a digital camera with a full frame sensor (or an APS-C sized sensor), interchangeable lenses and a big LCD screen (VGA resolution like on the last Sony and Nikon DSLRs).

I think we will see that, in time - but once you have the camera on a tripod, why constrain things to a screen small enough to fit on the back of the body? The VGA screen on a D300 is better than the QVGA screen on other cameras but still not good enough. I'm sure you don't use a VGA screen on your computer to evaluate your images. (Note though that the D300 exchanges the useless composite video output for a useful HDMI output, which gives a digital image at 1080 resolution - much better.

Abbazz wrote:
No reflex viewing. No autofocus.

The 'no autofocus' is why not. Most people still want autofocus, and a camera that does not have that as one option is a non-starter commercially.

Abbazz wrote:
No automatic diaphragm. As a consequence, there will be no need for complex coupling between the body and the lens, so this camera could use the M42 or Leica M mount... An added bonus of the Leica M mount is that about any lens I can think of could be mounted with an adapter on a camera with a Leica M mount.

That would be a very interesting but also very specialist camera, so unlikely to be made in my opinion.
Abbazz wrote:
Also an upscale model could be equipped with a coupled viewfinder/rangefinder, thus allowing to frame and focus easier in very bright light.

I would rather see a screen hood, like graphics artists use on their monitors. A rangefinder seems like a big step backwards here.

Abbazz wrote:
To focus, one joystick next to the LCD, just under the right thumb: press the joystick to get instant 12X magnification on the screen; tilt the joystick in any direction to move the zoomed image around. Fast and accurate.

You seem to be describing the zoom in feature that already exists and is called live view. The four way pad (under the right thumb, as you said) is indeed used to pan the zoomed image. Yes, its great. I thought you said there was no point, though?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:23 am    Post subject: Re: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:

I am quite puzzled that no outsider in the camera manufacturing business has never come up with the idea of a digital camera with a full frame sensor (or an APS-C sized sensor), interchangeable lenses and a big LCD screen (VGA resolution like on the last Sony and Nikon DSLRs). No reflex viewing. No autofocus. No automatic diaphragm. As a consequence, there will be no need for complex coupling between the body and the lens, so this camera could use the M42 or Leica M mount...


I'm not (puzzled), because outsiders don't exist anymore (haven't you noticed that SLR market is basically 3-4 brands, as opposed to, say, the Seventies, when there were 10-15 brands all well rooted in the market?). To stay in the business of Digital SLR you need a lot of research and development, and this costs a lot of money, money that you can recover only if you sell a lot of lenses, so outsiders too, should they arise, will want to make their own proprietary camera mount, because the purpose of a 600-800 Euros camera is to induce the sale of at least 1500-2000 Euros of system compatible lenses, the only way an outsider may survive without the R&D and the marketing segments diverisification of companies like Canon Nikon Pentax or Sony.

Anyway, in the world of dreams, your idea is really the camera of dreams. Rolling Eyes

-


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Live view has some use for macro focusing on triopod. My experience with it so far is ehh...... In order to really make use of it for focus you must zoom to 10x. At that level of digital magnification any tiny vibration is an earthquake in the LCD. So if you touch the focus ring it is like ringing a bell and quite irritating. As far as the usefulness in composing DOF well, it has a long way to go. When doing this type of work (tripod/macro) one is seldom in a hurry. Reviewing a taken shot on the LCD and then making adjustments for the next is much more useful then relying on a wobbly live view image. If the mega camera companies would put a couple bucks into a decent mirror-box/prism/focus-screen on there megabuck cameras. We would have a more useful tool for composing than live view. Yes, ultimately live view on a computer monitor size screen would be great. But only for studio and controlled situations where such systems are already in use (Sinar, horseman, who's next?). Field photogs and those doing reportage need better optical(reflex) view. Gone are the days of the big bright viewfinder for all but the heaviest wallets. Live view will appeal to some it's true. I believe that most photographers will always prefer to see there subjects thru an "optical" device rather than a "video" one. I can speak I suppose only for myself. If I could afford to so have, an M8 with a classic contrast spot range-finder would be my beast of choice for most work. Not exactly high tech anymore but there is more to photography then ever expanding technology. The most classic forms of this art are the ones that will never be left behind. I suppose that is the point of this forum after all. "Manual focus" used to be called "focus". Why is a "live viewfinder" better than a "viewfinder"? It is not actually live after all.

Andy


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
The most classic forms of this art are the ones that will never be left behind. I suppose that is the point of this forum after all. "Manual focus" used to be called "focus". Why is a "live viewfinder" better than a "viewfinder"?
Andy


Amen


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:27 am    Post subject: Re: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Chris,

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not criticizing live view or trying to prove that reflex viewing is better, not at all. I have always preferred rangefinders to SLRs, which I find clumsy and bulky, especially medium format SLRs, When I shoot medium format, I usually use a rangefinder, sometimes an old folder or a TLR, but I never use an SLR. You are talking about mirror slap in your answer, have you ever tried a Pentax 6x7?

I bought my first digital camera 10 years ago. I know what a zoomable digital image is and I am aware that this feature has existed for years on point and shoot cameras.

My point here is that to me, the so called "live view" feature doesn't make sense on a DSLR camera. It's touted as a revolutionary feature but it's only one more marketing gimmick. If someone wants an interchangeable lens high quality camera with accurate focusing on a zoomable digital image on a high definition screen, why is there no other choice than to buy a DSLR, which is the worst camera for this purpose?

Now more than ever, we need to be freed from the tyranny of the SLR. Of course, the big five camera manufacturers don't want to drop the DSLRs, because those unnecessarily complicated cameras sell for higher prices. That's why I suggested that maybe an outsider should create a simple camera (to reduce R&D costs) with a big sensor, a big screen and interchangeable lenses.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am behind Abazz I tried ones, it was unusable feature for me.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Abbazz. Don't loose your time. In this forum most don't understand why some lens are AF and why they put batteries in dslr.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This interesting rant had triggered some nice discussion. Fine!

I agree to you, Abbazz, when you say that you can't see any sense in the "LiveView" feature. It does not make any sense to me either. Andy pointed at the improvement for close-up shot. OK, that might be a reason, but it is not important for me.
And Chris' idea of a studio cam with a big screen to focus is very far away from my kind of photography.

Still, I don't agree that SLRs in general are some kind of dispensable technology and I hope that your prediction will not come true!
Yes, using a rangefinder is fun, but I still prefer an SLR in most cases. The chance to see the DoF and the real image you will record is just great!
And why not on a display?
I just love to hold the cam to my eye instead of extending my arms and look at the back of a cam. This is OK, and quite useful, for video cams where I need to get an idea of what is going on around my subject, but with a photo cam I want to be very close. When I compose (not matter if thoroughly or quickly for a snapshot) I want to be "alone under a blanket" with my cam, just this piece of optical engineering and I. For this short moment of time, it's just the cam and me and we both try to capture the scene. This is what I like to describe with the "feeling" of taking a photo.
And this is why well built MF lenses can be more fun than modern, optically perfect AF lenses which are just too quick to enjoy the process of taking the shot. With these lenses, you just push the button and everything is sharp and well exposed within a fraction of a second. This does not leave you the time to "relish" of this particular moment. You know, it's not "seize the day", it's "seize the moment". Wink

AF lenses are great for quick captures, like those I need to take pics of my kids. MF often is too slow for my little "hurricanes". And for this I love my AF lenses. But if I really want to "reap the benefits" of photography, I prefer well built MF lenses that give you pleasure just by turning the focus ring. Wink

Last edited by LucisPictor on Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Hi Abbazz. Don't loose your time. In this forum most don't understand why some lens are AF and why they put batteries in dslr.


I think the people you point at understand that, they just don't like it.
We understand why it rains, but still we don't need to like it, right?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:31 pm    Post subject: Re: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
Chris,
I think you misunderstood my point.


I think that you have misunderstood more mine!
I was not commenting on the quality of liveview or on any other points of your reply.
I simply noted that I am not surprised that such a camera as the one you describe is not made, because the market is dominated by 3-4 major makers whose main income comes from the sale of custom system lenses.

Your camera would make all existing lenses equally good, and would dramatically cut the profit income for the aforementioned 3-4 companies.

Mine was simply a marketing comment.
-


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
poilu wrote:
Hi Abbazz. Don't loose your time. In this forum most don't understand why some lens are AF and why they put batteries in dslr.


I think the people you point at understand that, they just don't like it.
We understand why it rains, but still we don't need to like it, right?


I agree, and I would also add that such a rude commenting was unneeded and uncalled for in this thread.

-


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
such a rude commenting was unneeded and uncalled for in this thread

this thread is a rant and I just do a satirical rant
And what about hypocrisy? Every people use AF but prefer manual, every people use digital but prefer film. Every people will use lifeview and will prefer viewfinder.
How many people here go holidays with their plastic AF lens and claim they prefer manual lens. Is it everything about preferences or also about facts ?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

And what about hypocrisy? Every people use AF but prefer manual


I don't. I have sold my fourth-to-last autofocus lens in November. I now remain with:

- Canon EF 100, which I tried to sell, unsuccessfully
- Canon kit lens, which I keep only because it has low resale value and may help significantly a camera sale should I decide to sell the 400D
- Canon EF-S 60 macro, which is the only autofocus lens I have that I really love, but I always focus it manually.

Quote:
every people use digital but prefer film.


I prefer digital as overall medium, but I also like to use film for slides and medium format and I don't think this is a contradiction.

Quote:
Every people will use lifeview and will prefer viewfinder.


If I have to decide based on my camcorder, I will never use the liveview. I always use my camcorder by looking in the viewfinder, because the proximity to the eye makes me more comfortable. I find the position to operate the liveview, awkward, and I am convinced that it will raise the number of blurred images when shooting around the safety limit (1/30 sec) due to the necessity of extending the forearm.

Quote:
How many people here go holidays with their plastic AF lens and claim they prefer manual lens.


I went to Budapest last summer and the only AF lens I had with me was the Sigma 10-20, for no other reason than the lack of wideangle alternatives for my 400D. If there was a 10mm good rectilinear manual lens, I would buy it immediately (if I could afford it).
-


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Orio wrote:
such a rude commenting was unneeded and uncalled for in this thread

this thread is a rant and I just do a satirical rant
And what about hypocrisy? Every people use AF but prefer manual, every people use digital but prefer film. Every people will use lifeview and will prefer viewfinder.
How many people here go holidays with their plastic AF lens and claim they prefer manual lens. Is it everything about preferences or also about facts ?


Nothing wrong with satire! But hypocrisy is not the word to describe most people here.
I understand your points there is perhaps some truth in it. But I for myself, as I wrote, would not accept to be called hypocritical. I use both kind of lenses depending on what I want to shoot - and I admit that. Wink
I shoot on film and digitally, but I prefer digital because of ease of use and costs. And I do not use LiveView, since I don't have it and don't miss it at all. (Just with my video camcorder, I use it for the reasons stated above.)


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I don't. I have sold my fourth-to-last autofocus lens in November

Of course I was not referring about you. It was a general comment.
When I see people like Jes or Cosmin using real film I feel extremely happy and full of hope for the future of photography.
I was again people who without even trying anything have opinion for everything.
Like discussion about in body shake reduction, just give it and let people decide if they will use it or not.
But saying 'don't put it because it's not working for me' is just wind


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poilu, shake reduction is a very useful feature, LiveView is not really, IMHO.
I wouldn't mind having this in a cam, as you say, I do not need to use it.
BUT: developing, designing and constructing such a thing costs a lot of manpower and money. In the end we have to pay for it when we buy a cam.

Look at the prices for DSLRs, they still are ridiculous.
You have to pay for an EOS 1DsMIII about € 8.000,-. The film equivalent is the EOS-1V which you can get for about € 2.000,-. Is the sensor that expensive? I don't think so, since the 5D also has got a full frame sensor, of course of lower resolution.
Or compare the 30D (€ 1.400,-) and the 30V (€ 400,-) - again pretty simliar cams.

The high prices are partly a rip-off and to some extent caused by gimmicks that some people just don't want but have to pay for.

I am convinced that any of the important DSLR manufacturers could built a decent DSLR (with e.g. 8 MPix and appropriate built) and sell it for about €300,-. But they don't. Why should they? People pay more.

And then they invent new "features" (that only a few really use) to justify new models and high prices. Sad


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had AF lens only a kit lens , because I couldn't buy E-1 body only. I used only one times to check it works, result was crap... any of my MF lenses even the 2 EUR prices Industar-50 was lot better, so no reason to use it. I gave to my kids to practice they new cam, but I expect they will ask soon for an MF lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Every people use AF but prefer manual


My apologies for this, I write fast without reading back
I could not even imagine Attila with a AF lenses Embarassed
It was my mistake to use 'Every" and sincere sorry for those who feel offenses
I should have write "Many people use AF and claim they prefer manual"


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing I had an Sigma 70-300mm APO DG zoom I love that , but image quality was weak compare with my favorite mf lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:50 pm    Post subject: Re: [Rant] What is the purpose of the Live View feature? Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:

I think you misunderstood my point. I am not criticizing live view or trying to prove that reflex viewing is better, not at all. I have always preferred rangefinders to SLRs, which I find clumsy and bulky, especially medium format SLRs, When I shoot medium format, I usually use a rangefinder, sometimes an old folder or a TLR, but I never use an SLR. You are talking about mirror slap in your answer, have you ever tried a Pentax 6x7?


Yes, I may well have misunderstood your point - thanks for the clarification. I saw you (in a different thread) saying that liveview would never give better focussing than a split-prism and, since my own experience indicates that to be untrue, wanted to respond.

I have used a (film) SLR with split-prism manual focusing and two digital, non-slr cameras with live view that allowed manual focussing, one with zoom and one without. Of the three, the Canon G1 with liv e view but no zoom was the worst, and the Minolta A1 with live zoomable view was the best. The manual focus film camera (a Practika, passed down from my dad) was in the middle.

(No, I have never used a medium format camera of any type. )

I understand your main point now to be that SLR cameras offer no advantage and live view is one more reason to get rid of the mirror. Is that right?

If so I can agree with that. I bought my (current, first DSLR) camera because of the sensor size, the noise performance (I chose a 6MP camera when the 10MP D40x was replacing it, because I wanted larger and better quality photosites - actually, I chose the A1 when the A2 came out for the same reason) and because of the interchangeable lenses. The fact that there was a mirror in there and a pentaprism and an optical TTL finder was not a benefit I was seeking and in fact its actually something of a drawback.

I mention mirror slap, I saw a great article about it some time ago that I can't find now where the 'valley' of shuter speeds that demonstrate mirror slap blurring was explored. You are of course correct that a rangefinder camera does not suffer from that effect, but I think that a two-lens solution is a step backwards. I want a more direct, one lens, what you see is what you will get, solution.

Here is a quote from someone (ona Pentax forum) who found a lens that needed to be backed of slightly from its infinity stop to get correct focus:

"I can confirm that mine too likes to be a hair, ever so slightly, under infinite focus for the best sharpness. Here's the catch, and I have to re-do the test a third time wiriting down everything as I go this time to be sure. It appears in the viewfinder that infinite focus is the sharpest; when I tick back a hair it seems less sharp. But in the computer there's a slight edge to the one that was a tick back."

In other words the misalignment between the TTL, optical, but indirect SLR viewfinder and the actual sensor means that what you see can't fully be trusted. At least with SLR its through the same lens though. Using twin lenses is a step back.

I think, but am not sure, that you argue also for a rangefinder-like design but with a high quality, digital display in place of a second lens, optical display. is that correct?

Abbazz wrote:
I bought my first digital camera 10 years ago. I know what a zoomable digital image is and I am aware that this feature has existed for years on point and shoot cameras.

Okay. It wasn't clear to me before (I'm new, don't know peoples histories etc yet).

Abbazz wrote:
My point here is that to me, the so called "live view" feature doesn't make sense on a DSLR camera. It's touted as a revolutionary feature but it's only one more marketing gimmick.

I can't agree with that. I would rather have a DSLR that offered that feature than a DSLR that didn't.

Abbazz wrote:
If someone wants an interchangeable lens high quality camera with accurate focusing on a zoomable digital image on a high definition screen, why is there no other choice than to buy a DSLR, which is the worst camera for this purpose?

Ah, and there I can agree. If there was a high quality Nikon F-mount body with a zoomable live image for focussing then i would like to have one and would not mourn the loss of the mirror.

On the other hand, if such a body was MF only then it would probably be a short production run exclusive, luxury item and priced accordingly.

Abbazz wrote:
Now more than ever, we need to be freed from the tyranny of the SLR. Of course, the big five camera manufacturers don't want to drop the DSLRs, because those unnecessarily complicated cameras sell for higher prices. That's why I suggested that maybe an outsider should create a simple camera (to reduce R&D costs) with a big sensor, a big screen and interchangeable lenses.

Thanks once again for taking the time to explain your position to me. I'm grateful.
I agree that more complexity adds perceived value and allows cameras to be sold for higher prices. I am not convinced that the R&D costs for developing a new body would be low enough for a third party, though I could imagine a business that makes bodies by canibalising/customising an existing body 9and electronics, and thus maintaining compatibility with RAW conversion software). Jumping to full frame is risky enough even for Canon and Nikon; going to a larger sensor size than that risks even more because of perceived lack of lenses.
Straying outside the mainstream has inherent commercial risks (look at 4/3 cameras, or the Sigma foveon-sensor camera). That tends to produce a high price, niche product if one is developed at all.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe fiction is already reality Shocked

Is the First EVF dSLR is coming?

Quote:
it's looking like the A200 will be the first dSLR to rely on an Electronic View Finder (EVF)


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/602796/0


PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This would be really strange. OK, perhaps useful for magnification features, but even high resolution EVFs are not as good as a mirror.
I know the one used in the Minolta Dimage A2 with almost 1 MPix, you still could easily tell that is is an EVF.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most of the complaints about the old Minolta DiMage 7 series were about the EVF and its jittery look when panning/moving about for example.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bob955i wrote:
Most of the complaints about the old Minolta DiMage 7 series were about the EVF and its jittery look when panning/moving about for example.


The worst part of my Dimage 7 was the poor battery life. Wink
But you're right! The reactions of the display were a little better in the A2, but by no means comparable to a mirror viewer.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2