Re: The end of the DSLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Sneddon, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. In message <>, Jake
    <> writes
    >"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message news:MPG.2302d
    >...
    >> 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
     
    Robert Sneddon, Aug 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Sneddon

    Roy G Guest

    "Robert Sneddon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>, Jake
    > <> writes
    >>"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message news:MPG.2302d
    >>...
    >>> 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
     
    Roy G, Aug 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <he5mk.39153$2>, Roy G
    <> 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
     
    Robert Sneddon, Aug 6, 2008
    #3
  4. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 6, 2008
    #4
  5. Robert Sneddon

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, 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.


    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 6, 2008
    #5
  6. Robert Sneddon

    Matt Ion Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Ion, Aug 6, 2008
    #6
  7. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 6, 2008
    #7
  8. Robert Sneddon

    dj_nme Guest

    savvo wrote:
    > On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor <-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.
     
    dj_nme, Aug 7, 2008
    #8
  9. savvo wrote:
    > On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    > <-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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 7, 2008
    #9
  10. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 7, 2008
    #10
  11. savvo wrote:
    []
    > You're confusing and conflating reflex and reflection.


    If we try hard enough, I'm sure we'll find a definiton of reflex which
    suits us both....

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 7, 2008
    #11
  12. David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > savvo wrote:
    >> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    >> <-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.....


    But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    right but not up and down?

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 7, 2008
    #12
  13. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    []
    > But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    > lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    > right but not up and down?


    Try holding the mirror in a different orientation!

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 7, 2008
    #13
  14. Robert Sneddon

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >> savvo wrote:
    >>> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    >>> <-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.....

    >
    > But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    > lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    > right but not up and down?
    >


    A learned person such as yourself asks this question without a smilie?

    Mirrors do *not* 'interchange' or 'reverse' left or right. They just..
    reflect!

    The mirror should not be maligned or imbued with some sort of magical
    ability, simply because your body is at fault by having left/right
    symmetry only...

    (O:
     
    Mark Thomas, Aug 7, 2008
    #14
  15. Robert Sneddon

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> David J Taylor
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> savvo wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    >>>> <-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.....

    >>
    >> But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    >> lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    >> right but not up and down?
    >>

    >
    > A learned person such as yourself asks this question without a smilie?
    >
    > Mirrors do *not* 'interchange' or 'reverse' left or right. They just..
    > reflect!
    >
    > The mirror should not be maligned or imbued with some sort of magical
    > ability, simply because your body is at fault by having left/right
    > symmetry only...
    >
    > (O:


    And I'll add there are *very few* webpages that properly explain the
    issues - namely our ingrained symmetry and the fact that the terms
    'left' and 'right' are NOT NOT NOT the same sort of directions as 'up'
    and 'down'.

    There's a rather clever conversation about this here:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/mirrors.html
     
    Mark Thomas, Aug 7, 2008
    #15
  16. "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    > lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    > right but not up and down?


    ....

    No they don't.

    If you hold up your right arm, the reflection in the mirror
    holds up the arm on right arm as well.

    However even without a mirror, a person facing you might just
    as well claim that the arm you raised was on the left.

    In other words whether something is on the left or the right
    depends on the direction in which the viewer is facing
    relative to what they're describing.

    Whereas whether something is up or down never depends on
    the direction in which the viewer is facing.

    Not until people make more of a habit of standing on their
    heads anyway. At which point, further clarification may be
    called for.



    michael adams

    ....








    >
    > --
    > Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    > IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    > [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
    >
     
    michael adams, Aug 7, 2008
    #16
  17. Robert Sneddon

    Scott W Guest

    On Aug 7, 3:41 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > > savvo wrote:
    > >> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    > >> <-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.....

    >
    > But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    > lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    > right but not up and down?


    They don't chnage left and right, what they do change is front to
    back, which is what changes the handedness (if that is a word).

    So x and y axis stay the same but z becomes -z.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Aug 7, 2008
    #17
  18. Robert Sneddon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> David J Taylor
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> savvo wrote:
    >>>> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    >>>> <-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.....

    >>
    >> But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    >> lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    >> right but not up and down?
    >>

    >
    > A learned person such as yourself asks this question without a smilie?
    >
    > Mirrors do *not* 'interchange' or 'reverse' left or right. They just..
    > reflect!
    >
    > The mirror should not be maligned or imbued with some sort of magical
    > ability, simply because your body is at fault by having left/right
    > symmetry only...
    >
    > (O:


    Decagon is ten so maybe a decaprism? :)

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

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 8, 2008
    #18
  19. Robert Sneddon

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >>> David J Taylor
    >>> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>> savvo wrote:
    >>>>> On 2008-08-06, David J Taylor
    >>>>> <-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.....
    >>>
    >>> But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    >>> lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left and
    >>> right but not up and down?
    >>>

    >>
    >> A learned person such as yourself asks this question without a smilie?
    >>
    >> Mirrors do *not* 'interchange' or 'reverse' left or right. They
    >> just.. reflect!
    >>
    >> The mirror should not be maligned or imbued with some sort of magical
    >> ability, simply because your body is at fault by having left/right
    >> symmetry only...
    >>
    >> (O:

    >
    > Decagon is ten so maybe a decaprism? :)


    Which would be useful for taking pictures of yourself in the mirror!

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

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Aug 8, 2008
    #19
  20. Scott W <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Aug 7, 3:41 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >> David J Taylor
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.

    > uk> wrote:


    >> > You can call it what you want, but the image needs inversion
    >> > before it

    > is
    >> > suitable for most of us to view.....

    >>
    >> But we must be careful to distinguish between the rotational and
    >> lateral inversions. For example, why do mirrors interchange left
    >> and right but not up and down?


    > They don't chnage left and right, what they do change is front to
    > back, which is what changes the handedness (if that is a word).
    >
    > So x and y axis stay the same but z becomes -z.


    I am late to this party but what the hell...

    Scott's three lines are an admirably concise account of what plane
    mirrors do. I, on the other hand, intend to run on for a bit.

    Concave mirrors producing a real image invert along all 3 Cartesian
    axes, as do lenses creating real images. Optical systems which create
    odd numbers of inversions create net inversion. Systems which create
    even numbers of inversions create images which are equivalent to a
    rotation plus a possible change of scale.

    This is of profound significance in the busines of life.

    Molecules which cannot be rotated into congruence with their mirror
    images created by a plane mirror are called dissymetric. Thus, almost
    all amino acids involved in protein molecules are dissymetric.
    Humans can metabolize amino acids with one stereochemistry at the
    carbon closest to the acid carbon, but not their mirror image
    structures. Other such selectivity occurs all through nature.

    One of the very earliest insights into this phenomenon came from a
    young lady called Alice, she of the looking glass and Wonderland. She
    says, at one point, "Perhaps looking glass milk is not good for you."
    This is a remarkable piece of thinking for the 19th century,
    particularly since both books were written, I think, before van't Hoff
    and le Bel published their separate papers on the stereochemistry of
    carbon. (Neither of them was the originator of the idea but their work
    came along at a time when the world was ready for it.)

    - Shankar
     
    Shankar Bhattacharyya, Dec 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ike lozada
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    546
    ike lozada
    May 27, 2004
  2. Dave

    Measure delay end-to-end

    Dave, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    581
  3. ec
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,747
    shinobi
    Jul 25, 2006
  4. RedRat
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    717
    Aaron Leonard
    Feb 1, 2006
  5. Georg Schwarz

    SIP and end-to-end

    Georg Schwarz, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    568
    Andrew Zhilenko
    Oct 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page