«

Arguments are starting between DSLR and P&S advocates as digital camera
technology evolves. My hopes are on the DVC (Digital View Camera) as the
final solution to these arguments.

Early P & S cameras were considered just toys with their tiny screens and
minute viewfinders. Now as the view screens get bigger and the sensors get
better people are starting to see better pictures coming from this crop of
new cameras. The simple ergonomics of these new P & S cameras is making
better photographers out of the people that use them. Taking shots with both
eyes wide open is a definite asset to any photography.

The DSLR is a dinosaur with its clunky mirror and one-eyed viewfinder.
Fortunately you can see from the latest crop of DSLR's that they are taking
their pointers from the P & S crowd and adding Live-View and larger view
screens.

The end result of this evolution will be the advent of the DVC which will
have a large and effective view screen, combined with an excellent CCD. The
new DVC cameras will mimic the old film view cameras that many true
professionals still use today.

NM

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:00:29 -0700, ~~NoMad~~ wrote:

> Arguments are starting between DSLR and P&S advocates as digital camera
>
Ther are two sides in any argument - Mine and the mistaken one.
--
Neil

On Sep 29, 12:00 pm, "~~NoMad~~" <understanding.eng...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Arguments are starting between DSLR and P&S advocates as digital camera
> technology evolves. My hopes are on the DVC (Digital View Camera) as the
> final solution to these arguments.
>
> Early P & S cameras were considered just toys with their tiny screens and
> minute viewfinders. Now as the view screens get bigger and the sensors get
> better people are starting to see better pictures coming from this crop of
> new cameras. The simple ergonomics of these new P & S cameras is making
> better photographers out of the people that use them. Taking shots with both
> eyes wide open is a definite asset to any photography.
>
> The DSLR is a dinosaur with its clunky mirror and one-eyed viewfinder.
> Fortunately you can see from the latest crop of DSLR's that they are taking
> their pointers from the P & S crowd and adding Live-View and larger view
> screens.
>
> The end result of this evolution will be the advent of the DVC which will
> have a large and effective view screen, combined with an excellent CCD. The
> new DVC cameras will mimic the old film view cameras that many true
> professionals still use today.
>
> NM

To me, the SLR will not be obsolete until electric viewfinders have
the same number of pixels or more than the main image chip. Not many
7 Mp LCD screens around.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> On Sep 29, 12:00 pm, "~~NoMad~~" <understanding.eng...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Arguments are starting between DSLR and P&S advocates as digital camera
>> technology evolves. My hopes are on the DVC (Digital View Camera) as the
>> final solution to these arguments.
>>
>> Early P & S cameras were considered just toys with their tiny screens and
>> minute viewfinders. Now as the view screens get bigger and the sensors
>> get
>> better people are starting to see better pictures coming from this crop
>> of
>> new cameras. The simple ergonomics of these new P & S cameras is making
>> better photographers out of the people that use them. Taking shots with
>> both
>> eyes wide open is a definite asset to any photography.
>>
>> The DSLR is a dinosaur with its clunky mirror and one-eyed viewfinder.
>> Fortunately you can see from the latest crop of DSLR's that they are
>> taking
>> their pointers from the P & S crowd and adding Live-View and larger view
>> screens.
>>
>> The end result of this evolution will be the advent of the DVC which will
>> have a large and effective view screen, combined with an excellent CCD.
>> The
>> new DVC cameras will mimic the old film view cameras that many true
>> professionals still use today.
>>
>> NM
>
> To me, the SLR will not be obsolete until electric viewfinders have
> the same number of pixels or more than the main image chip. Not many
> 7 Mp LCD screens around.
>

It would be interesting to figure out what the effective resolution of an
eye looking through an SLR viewfinder is. What with all the optics and
focusing screens in the way, I would suspect it would be quite low.

NM

I have shot with SLR's (and compacts) for many years (both film and
digital). For me, live view on DSLR's would only really be useful when I
can't get my eye on the optical viewfinder (for example, if there is an
obstruction in front of you and you need to hold the camera above head
height). In the past this was more luck than judgment. It could also be
handy when shooting on a tripod, but to be honest, it wouldn't get me any
photos I wouldn't get anyway.

The other benefit is a 100% field of view, but most pro DSLR bodies have
this through the optical viewfinder and when shooting with DSLR's that only
have 95% FOV, it is fairly easy to adapt.

I can see no disadvantages of having large LCD's, but to be honest, I only
use this when I am in the hotel, plane, etc. with some time to spare and
scan through the days photos. What really counts is what you see through
the viewfinder when you take the shot, and for this I want to look through
an optical viewfinder, not an LCD.




"~~NoMad~~" <> wrote in message
news:fdm0gf$tfp$...
> Arguments are starting between DSLR and P&S advocates as digital camera
> technology evolves. My hopes are on the DVC (Digital View Camera) as the
> final solution to these arguments.
>
> Early P & S cameras were considered just toys with their tiny screens and
> minute viewfinders. Now as the view screens get bigger and the sensors get
> better people are starting to see better pictures coming from this crop of
> new cameras. The simple ergonomics of these new P & S cameras is making
> better photographers out of the people that use them. Taking shots with
> both eyes wide open is a definite asset to any photography.
>
> The DSLR is a dinosaur with its clunky mirror and one-eyed viewfinder.
> Fortunately you can see from the latest crop of DSLR's that they are
> taking their pointers from the P & S crowd and adding Live-View and larger
> view screens.
>
> The end result of this evolution will be the advent of the DVC which will
> have a large and effective view screen, combined with an excellent CCD.
> The new DVC cameras will mimic the old film view cameras that many true
> professionals still use today.
>
> NM
>
>
>
>
>

~~NoMad~~ <> wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to figure out what the effective resolution of an
> eye looking through an SLR viewfinder is. What with all the optics and
> focusing screens in the way, I would suspect it would be quite low.
>
I doubt it. The ground glass collar on my old Pentax
viewfinder screen is sharp enough that a 2x magnifier
over the eyepiece is genuinely useful. I would
guess that that means a resolution on the fine
ground-glass portion of the screen of better
than 1 line pair per minute of arc.

The viewfinder is around 20 degrees by 30 degrees,
so a whole screen with 2 pixels per minute of arc would
have to be over 8 megapixels.

That being said, an 8 megapixel EVF would be in
many ways better than an optical system. The
really sharp area would not be confined to
a doughnut shape at the centre of the screen,
and it could be as bright as you like.

Peter.
--

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
<>], who wrote in article < om>:
> To me, the SLR will not be obsolete until electric viewfinders have
> the same number of pixels or more than the main image chip. Not many
> 7 Mp LCD screens around.

As experience shows, a VGA (640x480x3) eVF with an "instant on-demand"
2x or 4x magnification (as on A2) is getting close in usability to an
honest optical viewfinder. Given this, I expect that about 1200x800x3
eVF would be much better than an optical viewfinder.

(And, honestly speaking, I would gladly reject the "tunnel"
viewfinder at all, if there were an alternative way to stabilize
the camera - I hate screwing the camera into my eyesocket.)

Hope this helps,
Ilya

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-> wrote:
>
> As experience shows, a VGA (640x480x3) eVF with an "instant on-demand"
> 2x or 4x magnification (as on A2) is getting close in usability to an
> honest optical viewfinder. Given this, I expect that about 1200x800x3
> eVF would be much better than an optical viewfinder.

You mean Minolta Dimage A2? Interesting comment.

> (And, honestly speaking, I would gladly reject the "tunnel"
> viewfinder at all, if there were an alternative way to stabilize
> the camera - I hate screwing the camera into my eyesocket.)

As it turns out, holding a digicam at arms length and looking at
the LCD viewfinder works just as well (for stability) as putting the
viewfinder next to your face, perhaps because arm-holding eliminates
shake from breathing.

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Bill Tuthill
<>], who wrote in article <>:
> > As experience shows, a VGA (640x480x3) eVF with an "instant on-demand"
> > 2x or 4x magnification (as on A2) is getting close in usability to an
> > honest optical viewfinder. Given this, I expect that about 1200x800x3
> > eVF would be much better than an optical viewfinder.

> You mean Minolta Dimage A2? Interesting comment.

Actually, I lost the count. It might have been this, otherwise it is
Konica Minolta Dimage A2.

> As it turns out, holding a digicam at arms length and looking at
> the LCD viewfinder works just as well (for stability) as putting the
> viewfinder next to your face, perhaps because arm-holding eliminates
> shake from breathing.

I find it hard to believe such blanket statements. This MUST depend
on the design of the grips, weight of the camera, physical length of
the lens, on focal length, exposure time, presence of stabilization
etc...

Yours,
Ilya

Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-> wrote:
>
>> As it turns out, holding a digicam at arms length and looking at
>> the LCD viewfinder works just as well (for stability) as putting the
>> viewfinder next to your face, perhaps because arm-holding eliminates
>> shake from breathing.
>
> I find it hard to believe such blanket statements. This MUST depend
> on the design of the grips, weight of the camera, physical length of
> the lens, on focal length, exposure time, presence of stabilization
> etc...

There was a test on this, which I will endeavor to find...

Here it is:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=17501274