Re: The end of the DSLR
 

In message <iqednfcn4OzaXAXVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>, Jake
<me@privacy.com> writes
>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2302d
>363146d1c9698bdb2@news.supernews.com...
>> http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767
>>
>> Olympus and Panasonic have announced a new camera standard with no
>> mirror, EVF and interchangeable lenses.

>
>So, you are looking at a LCD instead of a real image?

Classic mirror-flip SLRs show a false image -- what is shown in the
viewfinder is not the image currently impinging on the recording surface
(whether it is film or an electronic sensor) but an image bounced off a
mirror, round a prism and through assorted other lenses before it gets
to the camera user's eye. Hopefully it is calibrated accurately and the
viewfinder image's focussing matches the recording surface, otherwise
there's a lot of out-of-focus shots and an expensive trip to the camera
repair shop.

An EVF shows the user what the camera's sensor is seeing, not a
guesstimate of exposure and focus.

> No thanks! Why would anyone choose to look at an LCD over an optical
>view finder?!?

Image enhancement, preview zoom, movie mode, continuous pre-shoot,
high-speed continuous shooting, a whole range of reasons. Classic
mirror-flip SLR systems can't do these things, the new non-mirror
exchangeable-lens cameras will be able to. That's why mirror SLRs will
be left behind in the dustbin of history, in the same way wet-plate
chemistry photography was overtaken by "film".

>Anyway, I don't care what Olympus and Panasonic are doing to be honest,
>which says it all.

Yes, I suppose it does.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

"Robert Sneddon" <fred@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:06FqcQOKiMmIFwvg@nospam.demon.co.uk...
> In message <iqednfcn4OzaXAXVnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>, Jake
> <me@privacy.com> writes
>>"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2302d
>>363146d1c9698bdb2@news.supernews.com...
>>> http://www.dcresource.com/news/newsitem.php?id=3767
>>>
>>> Olympus and Panasonic have announced a new camera standard with no
>>> mirror, EVF and interchangeable lenses.
>
>>
>>So, you are looking at a LCD instead of a real image?
>
> Classic mirror-flip SLRs show a false image -- what is shown in the
> viewfinder is not the image currently impinging on the recording surface
> (whether it is film or an electronic sensor) but an image bounced off a
> mirror, round a prism and through assorted other lenses before it gets
> to the camera user's eye. Hopefully it is calibrated accurately and the
> viewfinder image's focussing matches the recording surface, otherwise
> there's a lot of out-of-focus shots and an expensive trip to the camera
> repair shop.
>
> An EVF shows the user what the camera's sensor is seeing, not a
> guesstimate of exposure and focus.
>
>> No thanks! Why would anyone choose to look at an LCD over an optical
>>view finder?!?
>
> Image enhancement, preview zoom, movie mode, continuous pre-shoot,
> high-speed continuous shooting, a whole range of reasons. Classic
> mirror-flip SLR systems can't do these things, the new non-mirror
> exchangeable-lens cameras will be able to. That's why mirror SLRs will
> be left behind in the dustbin of history, in the same way wet-plate
> chemistry photography was overtaken by "film".
>
>>Anyway, I don't care what Olympus and Panasonic are doing to be honest,
>>which says it all.
>
> Yes, I suppose it does.
> --
> To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon


It might well happen, but it will hardly happen overnight.

This kind of change will be gradual, perhaps we have already seen the
beginning with the recent introduction of "Live View" LCDs on DSLRs.

The resulting Mirrorless Cameras will still be a breed apart from the
average Joe's P & S.

I am sure there will be new problems to replace "Mirror Slap" and "95% View
Finders". Some of those new problems might well be much worse than the old
ones.

And there will still continue to be stupid and pointless, arguments about
which users, (of Camera Types), are the least intelligent.

BUT, it will still be, and always has been, "Choose and Use what You Like".

Roy G

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

In message <he5mk.39153$hR4.12514@newsfe24.ams2>, Roy G
<roy.gibson1@virgin.net> writes
>This kind of change will be gradual, perhaps we have already seen the
>beginning with the recent introduction of "Live View" LCDs on DSLRs.
>
>The resulting Mirrorless Cameras will still be a breed apart from the
>average Joe's P & S.

The major advantage these mirrorless cameras will have over P&S and
"bridge"/ZLR cameras will be interchangeable lens systems with coupled
aperture/autofocus. Getting rid of the mirror mechanism and viewfinder
optics will simplify manufacture a lot (engineers hate moving parts, and
precision high-speed moving parts especially). This will lead eventually
to much lower-cost SLR-equivalent cameras although you can expect a
price premium to start with.

Other advantages may include larger, more capable sensors -- right now
the dSLR mass market is committed to sensors that at best match 35mm
film formats, in part because of the mirror mechanism. Mirror systems
for 6x6 or 6x7 cameras are slow because the mirrors have to be large
which means massive. They also require a lot of body volume for the
mirror to move in. It will also be possible, without a mirror, to bring
the sensor a lot closer to the rear lens elements which means more range
in focussing and macro possibilities.

>I am sure there will be new problems to replace "Mirror Slap" and "95% View
>Finders".

Dust contamination of the sensor, but this problem exists for dSLRs
anyways.

>BUT, it will still be, and always has been, "Choose and Use what You Like".

It's going to be another option, another tool in the photographer's
toolbox. I'd expect sports/action photographers to be early adopters as
these cameras will be more robust than mirror dSLRs as there is less to
go wrong if they get dropped or otherwise abused.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

Robert Sneddon wrote:
[]
> Classic mirror-flip SLRs show a false image -- what is shown in the
> viewfinder is not the image currently impinging on the recording
> surface (whether it is film or an electronic sensor) but an image
> bounced off a mirror, round a prism and through assorted other lenses
> before it gets to the camera user's eye. Hopefully it is calibrated
> accurately and the viewfinder image's focussing matches the recording
> surface, otherwise there's a lot of out-of-focus shots and an
> expensive trip to the camera repair shop.

You are wrong about where the focus measurement surface lies. It is /not/
on the optical viewfinder. Even after all the bounces, the optical
viewfinder image is vastly superior to any current production EVF.

David

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

In article <06FqcQOKiMmIFwvg@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Robert Sneddon
<fred@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Classic mirror-flip SLRs show a false image -- what is shown in the
> viewfinder is not the image currently impinging on the recording surface
> (whether it is film or an electronic sensor) but an image bounced off a
> mirror, round a prism and through assorted other lenses before it gets
> to the camera user's eye. Hopefully it is calibrated accurately and the
> viewfinder image's focussing matches the recording surface, otherwise
> there's a lot of out-of-focus shots and an expensive trip to the camera
> repair shop.

it's a rare exception when it's not accurately calibrated, and it is
*exactly* the same image as what hits the sensor (or film).

> An EVF shows the user what the camera's sensor is seeing, not a
> guesstimate of exposure and focus.

except when the camera uses a secondary sensor for live view, such as
in the sony dslrs. and the 'guesstimate' is not a guess at all -- the
optical path length is the same.

> > No thanks! Why would anyone choose to look at an LCD over an optical
> >view finder?!?
>
> Image enhancement, preview zoom, movie mode, continuous pre-shoot,
> high-speed continuous shooting, a whole range of reasons. Classic
> mirror-flip SLR systems can't do these things, the new non-mirror
> exchangeable-lens cameras will be able to. That's why mirror SLRs will
> be left behind in the dustbin of history, in the same way wet-plate
> chemistry photography was overtaken by "film".

except that autofocus off the sensor will be contrast detect and much
slower than phase detect, there's a lag time with evf (and it never can
be 0, although it might be 'good enough'), and evf works very poorly in
dim light. and if the lcd display is on the back of the camera, it may
be difficult to see in bright sunlight.

so mirrors aren't going away any time soon.

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

Toby wrote:

> It will take a long time for EVFs to equal OVFs. I am a professional video
> cameraman, and our top-end cameras still have black and white CRT
> viewfinders, because LCDs are so poor--you can't focus with them worth a
> damn. No professional still photographer will accept working with today's
> poor EVFs, and I have seen nothing on the horizon to change that.

That is true - I work in CCTV and use a portable DVD player to adjust
and focus cameras, but sometimes I still have to turn to a CRT monitor
to get the really tricky focus down, even with a high-res 10" LCD on the
DVD.

One advantage to the OVF in general IS the ability to zoom in realtime -
the Live View on my 40D allows fairly precise manual focusing by zooming
in the image - which is handy for macro work, but it's still a ways from
ideal for ALL situations.

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

savvo wrote:
[]
> You might but we shouldn't since the announced system has done away
> with any reflex mechanism.

The reflex is now electronic, otherwise the image would be rotated 180
degrees.

David

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

savvo wrote:
> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> savvo wrote:
>> []
>>> You might but we shouldn't since the announced system has done away
>>> with any reflex mechanism.
>> The reflex is now electronic, otherwise the image would be rotated 180
>> degrees.
>>
>
> That's just gibberish.

Exactly.
No reflective surface (mirror or beamsplitter prism) means no reflex of
any sort.
So, the term "ZLR camera" (a term created by Olympus for their fixed
zoom lens SLR cameras) is dead wrong for an EVF digicam.
A camera with an Electronic ViewFinder and Interchangeable Lens could be
called an "EVIL camera", but as none exist yet it's still just a
gedanken by Chuxter on the dpreview forums.
Although Mu4/3 does maybe promise this type of camera.

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

savvo wrote:
> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>> savvo wrote:
>> []
>>> You might but we shouldn't since the announced system has done away
>>> with any reflex mechanism.
>>
>> The reflex is now electronic, otherwise the image would be rotated
>> 180 degrees.
>>
>
> That's just gibberish.

You can call it what you want, but the image needs inversion before it is
suitable for most of us to view.....

David

Re: The end of the DSLR
 

savvo wrote:
[]
>> You can call it what you want, but the image needs inversion before
>> it is suitable for most of us to view.....
>>
>
> Indeed it does. But that function is not performed by the reflex
> mechanism. There are hundreds of models of TLR and SLR cameras that
> require mental inversion by the photographer.
>
> Here's one that I just happen to have a photo of handy. As I say,
> there
> are hundreds more.
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/bizarrovern/2117965643/>
>
> Nice try, but you need to learn the definitions before spouting.

Never actually used a TLR or a laterally inverting SLR, nor a view camera.
Thanks for the reminder.

If you accept the term ZLR as including the word "reflex", where the
reflex is electronic, then probably any electronic viewfinder can be
termed "reflex". Of course, if you /don't/ accept ZLR, and I know that
many do not, then you won't accept electronic reflex either. Rotation by
180 degres is equivalent to reflection about both the X and Y axis.

Cheers,
David