Reichman on EVF's and the future of optical viewfinders

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 17, 2011.

  1. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:09:25 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:
    : In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$>, Ofnuts says...
    : > If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
    : > focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
    : > (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
    : > appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).
    :
    : Remote AF control is not necessary, because you adjust the focus, wait
    : for a second or two until the camera stabilises, and only after that you
    : take the shot. What you need however is a remote shutter control,
    : ideally wireless.
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 23, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:09:25 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
    wrote:
    : In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$>, Ofnuts says...
    : > If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
    : > focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
    : > (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
    : > appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).
    :
    : Remote AF control is not necessary, because you adjust the focus, wait
    : for a second or two until the camera stabilises, and only after that you
    : take the shot. What you need however is a remote shutter control,
    : ideally wireless.

    I don't think there would be any discernible difference between a wireless
    remote shutter control and a wired one. Unlike old-fashioned cable releases,
    the action of a wired shutter control isn't mechanical. Unless you jerked it
    enough to take up the slack, it would be hard for it to jostle the camera.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 23, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. John A <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 02:56:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$>, Ofnuts says...


    >>>> If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
    >>>> focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
    >>>> (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
    >>>> appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).


    >>> Remote AF control is not necessary,


    >>And how do you manually focus pixel perfect, when your pixel
    >>view completely blurs whenever you even breathe on the
    >>camera, not to mention touch it to change the focus?


    > Via iterations of the part you deleted from his post, obviously.


    .... and after an hour or two you might have focus. Great.

    Suddenly a method that takes only minutes or seconds looks
    very good.

    -Wolfgang

    PS: Of course, you don't need a camera either, you can always
    paint the damn thing in oil and digitize that.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2011
    #23
  4. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang


    >> > Resolutions of EVFs are going to increase in the future


    >> Of course. And one day we'll have flying cars that do 250 miles
    >> per gallon. And EVFs won't need significant power then, as we'll
    >> all use tiny fuel cells to drive cameras for 10 years ofvheavy
    >> duty use without a recharge --- and have the memory cards to
    >> record these 10 years in uncompressed, RAW 40+ MPIX movies.


    > You have a very pessimistic view of things.


    No, pessimistic would be that EVFs won't improve because they
    are 'good enough' and you can always zoom in.

    > Already now there are EVFs with good resolutions.


    Compared to what? To earlier ones? To (analog) half-TV resolution
    black&white EVFs?

    How many pixels does a EVF have --- 1 million, maybe 2
    million? What viewangle do you see in the EVF --- maybe
    40-50° diagonal? Go print a 2 megapixel photo wall-sized,
    step back until the view angle is said 40-50° and observe.
    Don't forget to have no colour correction at all.

    > Given the current frenetic rate of progress in
    > digital photography I expect that in a few years EVFs will be much
    > better than they are today.


    So you admit they aren't good enough for the average user
    today?

    >> Just now EVFs aren't there yet, and I cannot buy and use a camera
    >> from the future today.


    > It depends what you expect of an EVF. Already now EVFs are perfectly
    > suitable for composition


    You can compose with nearly no sight. Doesn't count.

    > and manual focus


    Only if you zoom in drastically. Judging the sharpness of
    different parts of the image at once is impossible with the
    current firmwares (which just magnify one region, usually only
    the center!), and not exactly good or easy to use even in a
    hypothetical super-duper does-even-the-cooking firmware.

    > (much better than OVFs,
    > because you can zoom into the image).


    And that is never possible with an OVF, because?
    Then explain how e.g. magnifying angle finders happen to exist.

    And I challenge you to focus with an EVF without enlarging.
    Especially with something like an 85mm f/1.2 near wide open.
    On a critical subject like portrait.

    >> > and for manual
    >> > focus EVFs can show an enlarged section of the image,


    >> ... it just takes several button presses ...


    > This depends on the camera. There are cameras which automatically zoom
    > to pixel level if the lens is set to manual focus and you rotate the
    > focus ring.


    Yes, but you then change the focus, again.

    > With other cameras (the Sony A55 for example) you just have
    > to press one button twice.


    .... several. As I said.

    >> > down to pixel
    >> > level if you choose so,


    >> If the *camera* chooses so, you meant.
    >> Or can you add that to a camera that misses that feature?


    > If that feature (pixel level enlargement) is missing, the camera
    > obviously is not suitable for manual focus.


    And yet manual focus chemical sensor cameras are perfectly capable
    at manual focus. Must be an EVF world view.

    >> > allowing precise manual focus, much more
    >> > accurate than possible with an OVF.


    >> And in theory everything is fine.


    >> And because you can enlarge, there is no need to increase the
    >> resolution.


    > I didn't write that. Additional resolution always helps.


    No, the industry will say that at some point.

    >> Of course, with OVFs you can use loupes and even focussing aids
    >> in the focussing screen. Which flatten the playing field. And,
    >> worse, you can switch to the monitor on the rear, which you can
    >> also zoom --- and there goes your EVF advantage completely.


    > With the crop sensor DSLRs I've used so far it was impossible to
    > precisely focus manually using the OVF.


    With an anvil I've never been able to screw in a screw either.
    Which is why I usually use a screwdriver for that job.

    Crop sensor DSLRs are designed for autofocus, and definitively
    not designed for manual focus. For that, you'd need at least a
    different focussing screen, one designed for manual focussing,
    not for transmitting maximal light. Focussing screens for manual
    focussing are available on the aftermarket.

    Use the right tools for the job, don't complain that a hammer
    won't cut wood or a saw won't drive a nail in.

    > But there are also other benefits of an EVF:
    > - smaller camera size and weight


    - Loss of fast AF for that size target.
    - Loss of simultaneously multiple point DOF metering (you'd need
    to rack the lens through once at least, and tracking multiple
    points in different distances is right out)
    - Can only do a couple hundred shots per charge, instead of
    thousands.

    > - perfectly accurate DOF preview


    - which won't help you much since the few pixels will automatically
    give harder, more in-focus borders than reality (you need lots
    of resolution show the difference between exactly in focus
    and slightly out of focus). Yes, you can reframe, zoom in,
    reframe back --- but that's not accurate in DOF and won't give
    you an overall view. Unless rule at "Memory".

    > (it's always inaccurate with optical
    > viewfinders)


    And why must that be so?

    > - perfect 100% view of the image with no misalignments


    Hypothetical. Some RAW converters can evaluate border areas
    that other RAW converters and JPEG engines don't put on
    display. Additionally, a single pixel in the EVF is already
    many pixels in the image (and the EVF is bound to a RAW
    converter). But let's ignore all that: Have you ever
    successfully framed a shot so that you'd have seen the
    difference between 100% and 97% in the result? If so, how
    would you know?

    Ah, let's add:
    - colours heavily interpreted and affected not only by WB,
    but also by temperature and drift (and never once
    calibrated)
    - dead or stuck pixels in about every EVF (and you cannot map
    them out)

    and many more, which have been noted over the time.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2011
    #24
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:02:39 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    <> wrote:

    >John A <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 02:56:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>>> In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$>, Ofnuts says...

    >
    >>>>> If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
    >>>>> focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
    >>>>> (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
    >>>>> appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).

    >
    >>>> Remote AF control is not necessary,

    >
    >>>And how do you manually focus pixel perfect, when your pixel
    >>>view completely blurs whenever you even breathe on the
    >>>camera, not to mention touch it to change the focus?

    >
    >> Via iterations of the part you deleted from his post, obviously.

    >
    >... and after an hour or two you might have focus. Great.
    >
    >Suddenly a method that takes only minutes or seconds looks
    >very good.


    You've never heard of an interpolation search?
     
    John A., Feb 24, 2011
    #25
  6. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg says...
    >> So you admit they aren't good enough for the average user
    >> today?


    > I never wrote that. EVFs are good enough for the average user.


    You wrote:
    | Given the current frenetic rate of progress in
    | digital photography I expect that in a few years EVFs will be much
    | better than they are today.

    Why should the industry produce *much* better EVFs when they are
    already good enough for the average user? There's little sexy
    marketing in EVF quality --- like in 'good noise handling'.
    People get rather more interested in megapixels and ISO
    numbers, no matter how the result actually looks.

    >> > and manual focus


    >> Only if you zoom in drastically. Judging the sharpness of
    >> different parts of the image at once is impossible with the
    >> current firmwares (which just magnify one region, usually only
    >> the center!), and not exactly good or easy to use even in a
    >> hypothetical super-duper does-even-the-cooking firmware.


    > You zoom in to pixel level - very simple.


    So how do you zoom into several, different parts of the image
    at once?

    > You get a level of AF accuracy
    > simply impossible with an OVF.


    In theory.

    We all know short x.x mm lenses --- as needed by the usual
    small sensor size of cameras with contrast-hunting-AF ---
    result in large DOF and thus small focussing errors are well
    hidden in the DOF. (BTW, there are cameras in that class with
    an 'optical tunnel' for composing, though they fight parallax.
    I'd count that as an OVF.)

    On the other hand, (D)SLR cameras tend to have large sensors, the
    smallest IIRC being 4/3rds and the common size being crop 1.5-1.6.
    The fast lenses available are not only much faster than most AF
    based, they are also much longer in real-world mm, and thus have a
    very shallow DOF. Focussing errors as committed by your average
    CHAF would show up mercilessly. Yet the AF manages 50mm f/1.0,
    85mm f/1.2 and similar lenses.

    Yes, it is possible that a combination of camera and lens under
    PDAF are out of tune. Just as it's real that you don't move lenses
    in infinitely small steps between measurements when searching
    with CHAF. The former can be corrected, nowadays even by the
    user in some cameras.

    Of course, many fine DSLR cameras now also allow CHAF and zooming
    to pixel size with their large rear monitors, so where is the
    advantage of a slower CHAF and EVF? Only in strong sunlight
    handheld shooting, when you usually stop down anyway.

    >> And I challenge you to focus with an EVF without enlarging.
    >> Especially with something like an 85mm f/1.2 near wide open.
    >> On a critical subject like portrait.


    > Of course you enlarge the view when focusing.


    Then I challenge you of observing the whole image while focussing
    with enlargement.

    >> > This depends on the camera. There are cameras which automatically zoom
    >> > to pixel level if the lens is set to manual focus and you rotate the
    >> > focus ring.


    >> Yes, but you then change the focus, again.


    > Nope - you only adjust the focus.


    Maybe I need to rephrase that: You cannot move the manual
    focus ring without changing the focus, yet you need to move
    the manual focus ring to enlarge. (Of course, there will be
    another way, only 2 menus and 3 buttons down.)

    >> Crop sensor DSLRs are designed for autofocus, and definitively
    >> not designed for manual focus. For that, you'd need at least a
    >> different focussing screen, one designed for manual focussing,
    >> not for transmitting maximal light. Focussing screens for manual
    >> focussing are available on the aftermarket.


    >> Use the right tools for the job, don't complain that a hammer
    >> won't cut wood or a saw won't drive a nail in.


    > But most people are using at most crop size sensor cameras.


    Most people are using mobile phone cameras, full stop.
    Compact cameras are already a luxury item.

    And if they feel manual focus to be important for them, they'll use
    the *large* monitor on the back of the camera (with enlarging) ---
    as you do with most point&shoot cameras --- and are no worse off
    than with an EVF. Or they buy an aftermarket focussing screen.
    Enough do, the aftermarket focussing screen suppliers live
    from them.

    > Almost
    > nobody uses full frame cameras or medium format.


    Almost nobody uses EVF cameras. Just as true.

    > This is the reality,
    > and with such cameras accurate manual focus with the OVF is not
    > possible. This is the reality.


    Too bad that these cameras do happen to have a large monitor
    and so on, see above.

    Unfortunately (for you) the PDAF focus confirmation works in
    manual focus mode.

    So, yes, accurate manual focus with the OVF is possible. Let
    me reiterate for you:
    1. Use the screen and enlarge OR
    2. use the focus confirmation OR
    3. use a manual focussing screen.

    Easy.
    Noone will buy an EVF just to manually focus. That's like
    buying a hammer with a thin snout to screw in screws.

    >> > But there are also other benefits of an EVF:
    >> > - smaller camera size and weight


    >> - Loss of fast AF for that size target.


    > Wrong. The Sony A55 can do fast focus. The Panasonic GH2 also.


    "AF system not quite up to capturing fast action" (dpreview on
    the A55)

    So much for fast focus. And why fast action people use DSLRs.

    And I guess the GH2 isn't just that fast either.

    >> - Loss of simultaneously multiple point DOF metering (you'd need
    >> to rack the lens through once at least, and tracking multiple
    >> points in different distances is right out)


    > Wrong again (see above).


    Technically impossible. A PDAF can simultaneously measure and
    track e.g. a far and a near target using separate focus points
    (actually, one target per AF point, given enough CPU power) by
    judging their phase shift. Lens movement is mostly optional ---
    only when one target is so out of focus (or uniform or dark)
    that the sensors can no longer detect borders lens movement
    is necessary.

    A CHAF can meter one target, depending on the software, anywhere
    on the sensor. It just needs to start racking the lens and see
    if it gets sharper or softer, then turn towards sharper until
    it gets softer again. Only then it knows the distance the
    lens would need to travel (or the aperture for a given CoC).
    For 2 targets a CDAF must hunt out both targets. And while
    measuring one target it can't keep an eye on the other target,
    especially if that target moves: it cannot decide between "it
    got less/more contrasty because it moved away from/towards the
    currently focussed plane" and "it got less/more contrasty because
    it changed colour/shape/turned around/etc".

    So CHAF cannot track 2 targets in different distances at once.
    Not to mention multiple targets.

    The only way for CHAF to choose an aperture to get multiple
    targets into DOF (with a given CoC) is to rack the lens from
    the furthest to the closest (or vice versa) and memorise the
    distances --- and hope nothing moves. PDAF can track, thus
    choose the aperture with confidence, even if targets move.

    >> - Can only do a couple hundred shots per charge, instead of
    >> thousands.


    > It's actually more than a couple of hundred,


    So that fast Sony A55 can do how many shots according to CIPA
    procedures? And that fast Panasonic GH2 can do how many shots
    according to CIPA procedures?

    How much can a DSLR do?

    > but then almost nobody
    > needs a battery which lasts for thousands of shots.


    Of course not. Almost nobody needs a camera, much less than one
    that lasts for tousands of shots.

    > Very few people
    > shoot thousands of shots in a day. Most people shoot less than 100-200
    > shots/day


    Since most people don't shoot every day. I've been known to
    shoot more than 1000 shots per day, on days when I was
    shooting heavily. (Yes, I know, it's evil to be unable to
    completely nail a situation with the first press of the
    shutter. But sometimes people, animals, actions aren't
    exactly predictable.

    > and in any case you can carry a spare battery with you.


    300 * 2 != 2000. I do carry a spare battery. For the next
    thousand shots.
    So you need multiple spare batteries. (And then there's the
    slippery slope down to one battery equals one shot.)

    >> > (it's always inaccurate with optical
    >> > viewfinders)


    >> And why must that be so?


    > Do some research.


    Only teachers are allowed to say that and only to their
    pupils. Everyone else has to prove their claims.

    > Due to the optical path and optical properties of the
    > OVF (prism/lens combination) the DOF is never represented properly in an
    > optical viewfinder.


    Hmmm. Let's see: The DOF is only ever affected from the main
    mirror to the focussing screen. Everything before that affects
    the film or sensor as well and everything behind that can only
    affect the whole image (and that goes for the prism and the lenses,
    both the one in front as the ones in the viewfinder.) Oh, you can
    present the whole image smaller and thus sharper ('change DOF')
    --- and vice versa. Loupes, as used by large format photographers
    on their ground glass do that. But the same is true with EVF,
    so if that's the DOF-changer, it's just as bad with EVF.

    Let's reduce this to the simplest model: 1 100% mirror and
    1 ground glass matte focussing screen. Nothing in between.
    Nothing I know of can happen to DOF in a mirror. Nothing I
    know of can happen to DOF in a matte screen. So how can it be
    that DOF *must* be incorrectly presented with an OVF?

    > I read an article explaining this in detail, but
    > would have to dig it out and am currently travelling with limited
    > Internet access.


    I'd be interested in that article.

    >> > - perfect 100% view of the image with no misalignments


    >> Hypothetical.


    > True. With an EVF misalignments between the image in the viewfinder and
    > what the sensor records are impossible.


    It's trivial to build an EVF that shows only 25%, and of the
    upper left corner. So much for 'impossible'. (Of course, it
    would be stupid to do that --- except for that they sell that
    as "zooming in".)

    > The view in the EVF is perfectly
    > matched with the image being recorded.


    It isn't. At best, the pixels displayed by an inherently
    low resolution EVF are a downscaled and not colour-corrected
    resemblance of a single interpretation of the RAW data the sensor
    delivers. They need not to have anything to do with reality.
    Just take WB, for an easy-to-grasp and easy-to-manipulate
    variable.

    > Compare that to OVFs where there
    > can be misalignments and the view most of the time is not 100% of what
    > the sensor is recording.


    Can you frame so exactly that you get something out of the
    percent or two shown less?
    Almost noone can.
    Those who can can correct the couple pixels more on the image
    with a very simple step in post processing.

    And the trend is towards the 100% view. Especially outside
    the cheap end.

    >> Ah, let's add:
    >> - colours heavily interpreted and affected not only by WB,
    >> but also by temperature and drift (and never once
    >> calibrated)


    > Highly irrelevant. Actually with an EVF you have a preview of what the
    > image will be, while with an OVF you do not know yet what image the
    > camera will be recording.


    Since I record RAW and develop that later, I don't care much what
    preview the EVF shows. Often enough it would show someting bad
    where a usable image will appear after development. Or it
    would show something hard to see as smearing from moving the
    camera stops me from framing with ease.

    >> - dead or stuck pixels in about every EVF (and you cannot map
    >> them out)


    > I've never had stuck pixels in the EVFs of cameras I've used so far.


    Did you test? Or did you just never notice them?

    > I've also never heard of anybody complaining about stuck pixels in EVFs.


    But they are there. Just as you find dead and stuck pixels
    in most LCD monitors and TV sets.

    > But feel free to continue complaining about EVFs. What is going to
    > happen is that OVFs will gradually disappear from most cameras.


    Yes, most cameras --- as you should have grasped by now ---
    are phone cameras, and they don't have EVFs nor OVFs. (And the
    second most common cameras, the P&S class, has been losing their
    viewfinders and hasn't replaced them with EVFs, either.) Since
    before digital cameras practically all cameras had OVFs, the ratio
    OFVs to cameras has worsened from nearly 1 to a much lower number.

    But that doesn't mean the camera niece(s) filled by mid-level
    crop to high end full format cameras (and maybe above, to
    medium format cameras) will lose their OVFs. Nor will we see
    EVFs in phone cameras or P&S cameras. EVFs have their place:
    in bridge cameras and many video cameras.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 25, 2011
    #26
  7. John A <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:02:39 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>John A <> wrote:


    >>> Via iterations of the part you deleted from his post, obviously.


    >>... and after an hour or two you might have focus. Great.


    >>Suddenly a method that takes only minutes or seconds looks
    >>very good.


    > You've never heard of an interpolation search?


    Several of them, under other names. However, they are not
    aplicable to fine manual focus adjustments.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 25, 2011
    #27
  8. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang


    >> Why should the industry produce *much* better EVFs when they are
    >> already good enough for the average user? There's little sexy
    >> marketing in EVF quality --- like in 'good noise handling'.
    >> People get rather more interested in megapixels and ISO
    >> numbers, no matter how the result actually looks.


    > EVF are already very good now


    Then there is no need for them to get *much* better.

    > (not in all cameras of course, only in
    > some), and they will get even better. Mainly due to competition - the
    > overall level goes up, and manufacturers don't want to be left behind.


    Only if it helps sell cameras. Megapixels sell cameras,
    hence ridiculous interpolated(!) MP numbers on some cameras.
    EVF don't sell cameras as far as I can see.

    >> So how do you zoom into several, different parts of the image
    >> at once?


    > You point the camera to the part you want to have in focus.


    So you break the camera into separate parts and point each
    one? As in 'I have this staggered 3 person group, and I want
    them all to be in focus'?

    >> On the other hand, (D)SLR cameras tend to have large sensors, the
    >> smallest IIRC being 4/3rds and the common size being crop 1.5-1.6.
    >> The fast lenses available are not only much faster than most AF
    >> based, they are also much longer in real-world mm, and thus have a
    >> very shallow DOF. Focussing errors as committed by your average
    >> CHAF would show up mercilessly.


    > I don't quite follow you here. CAF focuses accurately,


    In theory.
    In the real world CHAF measures the targets at discrete steps of
    the lens. Each step is as large as possible to speed up the AF.
    Especially in cameras that don't have any other AF.
    Ponder that.

    > more accurately
    > than PAF because there is no front or back focus problem.


    PDAF routinely manages 50mm f/1.0, 85mm f/1.2, and so on. That is
    a much higher accuracy than needed by cameras using an EVF to date.

    So PDAF is at least as accurate as CHAF --- and likely more
    accurate, since you don't want a slow AF.

    > <snip>


    > I didn't understand this long paragraph you wrote.


    Then why did you snip it?
    Reread it and think about it, then you will be able to ask specific
    questions.

    >> Then I challenge you of observing the whole image while focussing
    >> with enlargement.


    > You enlarge only to set the focus *after* having framed the image.


    This is not always possible, unless you only photograph static scenes.

    > Or
    > you can set the focus first, then go back to full view and frame again.


    This is only possible if you have enough time. Sometimes you don't.

    >> Maybe I need to rephrase that: You cannot move the manual
    >> focus ring without changing the focus, yet you need to move
    >> the manual focus ring to enlarge. (Of course, there will be
    >> another way, only 2 menus and 3 buttons down.)


    > What exactly is the problem? You adjust the focus with the focus ring in
    > the Panasonic GH1.


    And if you only want to check the focus without changing it?

    >> Almost nobody uses EVF cameras. Just as true.


    > Wrong. Micro 4/3 is selling very well. The Sony SLT cameras are selling
    > like hotcakes. Sony NEX and the Samsung mirrorless cameras are also
    > selling well. Then there are also lots of compact cameras with EVFs.


    Ah, yes, compared to, say, Canon 1D Mark whatever or their Nikon
    equivalent, they sell well. Compared to camera phones the sale
    numbers are a joke.

    And current sale numbers don't equate usage. Thought experiment:
    Sell X items A per year for 10 years. Then sell 3*X items B for
    3 months. B sells like hotcakes compared to A.

    BTW, which compact cameras (not bridge, but compact cameras)
    are having an EVF?

    >> So, yes, accurate manual focus with the OVF is possible. Let
    >> me reiterate for you:
    >> 1. Use the screen and enlarge OR


    > But then you are not using the OVF to focus. You are using the LCD
    > screen instead.


    And that is forbidden or cheating, because it delivers what
    EVFs promise?

    >> 2. use the focus confirmation OR


    > This is not manual focus. You are essentially relying on the camera's AF
    > (which might fail).


    Unfortunately for you, it is manual focussing using a focussing
    aid. Like enlargement. Which might fail as well.

    >> 3. use a manual focussing screen.


    > Crop DSLRs do not have focussing split screens.


    Do you need URLs to Katzeye and Haoda, or will you be able to
    google yourself?

    >> Easy.
    >> Noone will buy an EVF just to manually focus. That's like
    >> buying a hammer with a thin snout to screw in screws.


    > That is not the point.


    That is one of the points.

    >> "AF system not quite up to capturing fast action" (dpreview on
    >> the A55)


    > And that is total nonsense.


    So you have tested the camera? Where's your writeup and where's your
    description of the test methods.

    > The A55 can shoot at 10 fps


    9.09 fps.
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM

    > while adjusting
    > the focus between the shots.


    Sure. Doesn't say a thing about the speed the AF takes from triggering it
    to reaching focus, at best it says something about adjusting the focus a
    tiny bit in bright conditions.

    > No DSLR with a moving mirror can do that,
    > not even the most expensive models. It's an inherent problem of the
    > moving mirror design.


    Sure. The D3 can't do 11 fps. Must be imagination.
    And the Canon 1D Mark IV can't do 10 fps. All lies.

    You should really do research before making ridiculous claims.

    And before you wail over DX: the reason is sensor readout speed.[1]
    Not mirror movement speed.

    >> >> - Loss of simultaneously multiple point DOF metering (you'd need
    >> >> to rack the lens through once at least, and tracking multiple
    >> >> points in different distances is right out)


    >> > Wrong again (see above).


    >> Technically impossible.


    > <snipping the long discussion of P-AF regarding C-AF>


    > Do you realise that there are cameras (the Sony A55) which have an EVF
    > and use P-AF, not C-AF?


    Well, then why don't they use your superfast, errorless,
    non-mirror-needing CDAF? Would have been cheaper and smaller, no
    mirror box and all that --- all the reasons you advance for EVFs ...

    >> >> - Can only do a couple hundred shots per charge, instead of
    >> >> thousands.


    >> > It's actually more than a couple of hundred,


    >> So that fast Sony A55 can do how many shots according to CIPA
    >> procedures? And that fast Panasonic GH2 can do how many shots
    >> according to CIPA procedures?


    > I don't have exact numbers for both cameras. I hear the Sony A55 can do
    > up to 600-900 shots on one battery charge.


    One google for 'sony A55 CIPA' would have told you: 380 life view,
    330 with EVF. Compared to e.g. 1500 with the Canon 1D Mark IV.
    Just over 4.5 times more.

    Of course, if you don't wait and don't refocus and don't turn off
    the camera every so often and so on you can get many more shots
    from one battery.

    >> How much can a DSLR do?


    > Highly irrelevant.


    Because it lets your EVF cameras look bad.

    Just to rub in salt: Take a lens. Focus it. Turn on AF and press the
    shutter. How long till the shot gets taken --- without needing to move the
    lens:
    Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1, Panasonic 14-140mm lens: 0.321-0.336s (0.661s with
    flash)
    Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GH2: 0.241-0.273s
    Sony Alpha SLT-A55V, Sigma 70mm f/2.8: 0.220s (0.475s with flash)
    Canon 20D, Kit lens: 0.16s
    Canon 1D Mark IV, Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro: 0.104s

    (http://www.imaging-resource.com/index.html)

    >> 300 * 2 != 2000. I do carry a spare battery. For the next
    >> thousand shots.
    >> So you need multiple spare batteries.


    > You actually get more than 300 shots on a battery charge (see above).


    Yes, 330. 10% more.

    > But again, almost nobody shoots 2000 images in a day.


    And of course, you can always recharge at night.

    Almost nobody uses EVFs, either.

    >> > I read an article explaining this in detail, but
    >> > would have to dig it out and am currently travelling with limited
    >> > Internet access.


    >> I'd be interested in that article.


    > I think I found it: "Live view versus the cheating DSLR viewfinder"


    > http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-
    > dslr-viewfinder/


    Opiniated, and while correct in some observations, I think it misapplies
    them. Doesn't explain why OVFs *must* *always* be wrong about DOF. See
    the comments it got.

    >> > Compare that to OVFs where there
    >> > can be misalignments and the view most of the time is not 100% of what
    >> > the sensor is recording.


    >> Can you frame so exactly that you get something out of the
    >> percent or two shown less?


    > It's way more than 1-2%,


    So a 99% viewfinder shows, say, 95%?

    > in fact significant enough. Sometime you need
    > to frame very accurately.


    Post processing.

    >> Almost noone can.
    >> Those who can can correct the couple pixels more on the image
    >> with a very simple step in post processing.


    > 5% of the pixels is more than a couple of pixels.


    But even a 95% viewfinder will not cause you to lose 5% of
    the pixels.

    >> And the trend is towards the 100% view. Especially outside
    >> the cheap end.


    > The trend is towards cost-cutting.


    Which is why mobile phone cameras rule the world, and micro4/3rds
    doesn't.

    >> Since I record RAW and develop that later, I don't care much what
    >> preview the EVF shows. Often enough it would show someting bad
    >> where a usable image will appear after development. Or it
    >> would show something hard to see as smearing from moving the
    >> camera stops me from framing with ease.


    > Yes, I also shoot RAW+JPEG but it's an advantage if the JPEG image is
    > usable, because so you can skip the RAW processing step.


    I find a big difference between good and usable.

    > Obviously I would have noticed stuck pixels in an EVF, if there were
    > any.
    > And if they exist, but you can't see them they are not a problem


    Sure. And a misfocussing lens isn't a problem, unless you
    notice it.


    > I meant, OVFs are going to disappear from most *DSLRs* (together with
    > slapping mirrors).


    Will it be fixed mirrors with EVFs? Because without a mirror, it's not
    a DSL*R*, you know? It's an EVIL, at best.

    > This is the future.


    Thy will be done, and all that. Now, since you can foretell the future,
    how about lottery numbers?

    -Wolfgang

    [1] the faster you read, the lower the quality --- and the D3 isn't a
    point&shoot.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 26, 2011
    #28
  9. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/27/2011 03:42 AM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

    > I suggest you ponder that all Canon Powershot cameras have 65,536 focusing
    > steps in 1mm subject-distance increments.


    Hmm. If they can focus at infinity, at least one of the steps is bigger
    than 1mm. They can't use the hyperfocal since on the small sensors an
    hyperfocal distance of 65m at f/5.6 limits you to something around 40mm
    focal length.

    I must have missed something obvious...
    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 27, 2011
    #29
  10. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/27/2011 11:10 AM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > If you have compressed the available focal range from 2cm to
    > 10cm with a close-up filter (the 10cm now being your relative infinity,
    > optically), then for all practical purposes you have changed the step rate
    > to only 0.001mm per step. This is far finer precision than most microscope
    > stages.


    This is a hasty conclusion. The engineers use 65536 values because that
    conveniently fits in two bytes. Whether the electronics and lens
    mechanism that make use of this data have an equivalent accuracy is a
    quite different matter.

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 27, 2011
    #30
  11. Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    [Bullshit snipped]

    Show us your rare moth photographs!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 27, 2011
    #31
  12. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/27/2011 05:15 PM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:41:28 +0100, Ofnuts<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 02/27/2011 11:10 AM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >>> If you have compressed the available focal range from 2cm to
    >>> 10cm with a close-up filter (the 10cm now being your relative infinity,
    >>> optically), then for all practical purposes you have changed the step rate
    >>> to only 0.001mm per step. This is far finer precision than most microscope
    >>> stages.

    >>
    >> This is a hasty conclusion. The engineers use 65536 values because that
    >> conveniently fits in two bytes. Whether the electronics and lens
    >> mechanism that make use of this data have an equivalent accuracy is a
    >> quite different matter.

    >
    > Not at all. I'll let you think through all on your own why this highly
    > ignorant TROLL of yours is as full of bullshit as Puppygang Trollberg, when
    > it comes to the subject-distance focal-step accuracy being greatly, and
    > proportionally, amplified as you reduce the available focal range
    > optically.


    I'm not questioning the increase in accuracy matching the "compression"
    on the focus range, but the assumption that because you have 65536
    distinct focus values produced/used by the firmware you also have 65536
    accurate and reproducible lens positions.

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 27, 2011
    #32
  13. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/27/2011 10:55 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<4d6a7d49$0$26078$>, Ofnuts says...
    >> I'm not questioning the increase in accuracy matching the "compression"
    >> on the focus range, but the assumption that because you have 65536
    >> distinct focus values produced/used by the firmware you also have 65536
    >> accurate and reproducible lens positions.

    >
    > Wouldn't you agree in any case that is information available to a camera
    > manufacturer, not to common mortals? This discussion is meaningless in
    > this newsgroup, since nobody has the necessary information and I doubt
    > some camera manufacturer would jump in and share their camera design...


    This information is available to any common mortal who as ever looked at
    a camera.

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 27, 2011
    #33
  14. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/28/2011 11:50 AM, Better Info wrote:

    >
    > Right in the firmware of every camera. Get out your disassembler and have a
    > look. Then you can all have arguments over which cameras have higher
    > focus-step bit-depths implemented by which ultrasonic stepper-motors (yes,
    > they are capable of the precision, and more, that Numbnuts-the-Troll
    > doubts).


    Same error... some steppers could be that accurate, but not the ones you
    find in a $300 camera (which, btw, isn't always fitted with an
    ultrasonic motor). And we haven't considered the build precision of the
    lens barrel and mechanism yet.
    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 28, 2011
    #34
  15. RichA

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 02/28/2011 03:14 PM, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:04:06 +0100, Ofnuts<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Same error... some steppers could be that accurate, but not the ones you
    >> find in a $300 camera

    >
    > Yet they are accurate enough to accurately focus on 2µm pixels, smaller
    > than the depth of many bacteria. Precision oil-immersion lab microscopes
    > have a rough time focusing that accurately with a micrometer stage.


    1) focusing on 2µm pixels doesn't require 2µm moves. Otherwise one
    wonders how they took pictures before the invention of the stepper
    motor. And the 2µm in your pixels are transverse to the light travel
    unlike the depth of the bacteria.

    2) You are mixing sensor photosites sizes and subject size... In a
    microscope the DOF follows the same rule as in a camera. It shortens as
    the subject/image ratio increases. And while the camera barely reaches
    an actual 1:1 subject/image ratio, the microscope has the equivalent of
    100:1 or more...

    > Now, let's talk about how DSLRs can't even focus accurately on a 3" deep
    > subject, shall we?


    They focus as accurately, or even more accurately than a compact camera
    anywhere on a 3" deep subject. Things that are outside of the plane of
    focus get de-focused faster, but that's a different matter.

    *rattle*, *rattle*

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Feb 28, 2011
    #35
  16. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg says...
    >> So you break the camera into separate parts and point each
    >> one? As in 'I have this staggered 3 person group, and I want
    >> them all to be in focus'?


    > Note that also with an OVF and focusing aids you can only focus on one
    > spot at the same time (the one in the centre of the frame).


    It's perfectly possible to put focussing aids on more than one
    spot, even though that isn't very common. And a proper manual
    focussing matte screen is all over the place.

    > And if you want to have the whole group in focus using manual focus you
    > first focus on something in the middle then you check if the rest of the
    > group is in focus by pointing the camera to the other members of the
    > group, and if not everybody is in focus you choose a smaller aperture.


    Why not measure far and near, set the focus ring to the middle
    between them and then stop down the appropriate amount?

    >> In the real world CHAF measures the targets at discrete steps of
    >> the lens. Each step is as large as possible to speed up the AF.
    >> Especially in cameras that don't have any other AF.
    >> Ponder that.


    > That is pure speculation by you.


    Just as it is pure speculation that an EVF displays images from
    the main sensor. It could after all be a secondary sensor!

    > It's a piece of information you don't
    > have. This information is not published anywhere and only the camera
    > manufacturers have it.


    And *you* speculate wildly on the future of EVFs and OVFs.
    By your own standards, you should never utter a thing about them.
    Because you don't have information about the future.

    On the other hand, I have a sound theory of how CHAF works.
    This is based on observation and knowledge of basic physical
    phenomena and practical limits.

    If you don't agree, please lay out your theory how CHAF works,
    and why using as large steps as possible while hunting will not
    speed up CHAF.

    >> So PDAF is at least as accurate as CHAF --- and likely more
    >> accurate, since you don't want a slow AF.


    > People often report back and front focus issues.


    People often report flat batteries as well.

    > Some cameras even allow
    > micro AF adjustments to address this issue. The problem exists.


    All EVF cameras allow recharging batteries or even changing them
    to address this isue. The problem is very wide spread.

    See where your logic leads to?

    On the other hand, everyone knows and measures that CHAF is slower
    than PDAF and even the fastest CHAF isn't up to fast action.
    Unlike front or back focus you cannot send in your camera or even
    *gasp* correct it yourself.

    BTW, the Sony A55 will also suffer from front or back focus.
    Even with a EVF.

    >> This is not always possible, unless you only photograph static scenes.


    >> > Or
    >> > you can set the focus first, then go back to full view and frame again.


    >> This is only possible if you have enough time. Sometimes you don't.


    > Obviously you use manual focus either only on static scenes, or when you
    > can predict where the subject will be when you press the shutter and you
    > can focus on something at the same distance.


    How did people manage before AF, I wonder?

    > Note that this doesn't depend on whether you use an OVF or EVF.


    No, but at least today you still need a mirror for fast PDAF.
    When you use a mirror, you might just as well add an OVF.

    >> Ah, yes, compared to, say, Canon 1D Mark whatever or their Nikon
    >> equivalent, they sell well. Compared to camera phones the sale
    >> numbers are a joke.


    > Every phone may have a camera, but very few people use camera phones to
    > take photos.


    And yet you see them showing their pictures on their mobiles
    (and shot with their mobiles) everywhere. Maybe snapshots aren't
    photos to you.

    > Walk to a touristic place and you will notice that.


    Maybe only touristic places are where photos are taken, according
    to you.

    > Only in east Asia I've seen people use phones to take photos.


    And East Asia is a very small country.

    > Given that digital cameras with a optical zoom start at 50 Euro,


    Even camera phones can have optical zooms. And many better
    models have.

    A 50 EUR camera is likely a complete waste of cash, so you'd
    better pay twice that.

    > it is
    > understandable why people might prefer to use a real camera to take
    > shots.


    Most people carry their mobile phone every day. Most people don't
    carry 'real cameras' every day. When they carry real cameras,
    it is understandable that more and more people carry DSLRs,
    which after all, start at 300 EUR, and are vastly better than
    the extra cost over a 50 EUR point'n'shoot. After all, too many
    people are put off by experiencing 50 EUR cameras.

    >> >> So, yes, accurate manual focus with the OVF is possible. Let
    >> >> me reiterate for you:
    >> >> 1. Use the screen and enlarge OR


    >> > But then you are not using the OVF to focus. You are using the LCD
    >> > screen instead.


    >> And that is forbidden or cheating, because it delivers what
    >> EVFs promise?


    > It's not forbidden, but you posted this as an example of "manual focus
    > with the OVF" which it clearly is not.


    Ooh! I need to rephrase that for you: "manual focus despite
    having an OVF, not a super-duper can-enlarge-100-times EVF".

    No reason you *must* use an OVF, if you don't want to, not on
    today's DSLRs.

    >> >> 2. use the focus confirmation OR


    >> > This is not manual focus. You are essentially relying on the camera's AF
    >> > (which might fail).


    >> Unfortunately for you, it is manual focussing using a focussing
    >> aid. Like enlargement. Which might fail as well.


    > It's not manual focus, because you are using the camera AF. You are
    > simply replacing the lens motor with your hands.


    > It's manual focus when you determine yourself (not the camera) if
    > something is in focus.


    Ah, but *you* determine it. Just as you determine the exposure
    in M mode, despite an over/underexposure needle of the camera,
    coupled to a very simple or very sophisticated metering system.

    >> >> 3. use a manual focussing screen.


    >> > Crop DSLRs do not have focussing split screens.


    >> Do you need URLs to Katzeye and Haoda, or will you be able to
    >> google yourself?


    > No crop DLSRs are sold with these split screen focusing aids.


    No crop DSLRs are sold with:
    - ultra wide lenses
    - macro lenses
    - fast ~f/1.4 lenses
    - high end zooms or fixed focal length lenses
    - teleconverters/extenders
    - polarizers
    - ND filters
    - memory cards
    - aftermarket batteries
    - etc.

    According to your logic, crop DSLRs can't have any of the above.

    >> > The A55 can shoot at 10 fps


    >> 9.09 fps.
    >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM


    > It's indeed 10fps. This has been tested by pointing the A55 on a running
    > stopwatch and taking a series of shots. The A55 will take 20 frames in 2
    > seconds. Not always camera reviews are accurate.


    Fence post error. That's at best 9.5 fps. Think it through.

    Hint: A farmer wants to have a 200 meter fence. He needs a fence
    post every 10 meters. How many fence posts does he need?

    PS: Why should a stopwatch test be more accurate than a camera review?

    >> > No DSLR with a moving mirror can do that,
    >> > not even the most expensive models. It's an inherent problem of the
    >> > moving mirror design.


    >> Sure. The D3 can't do 11 fps. Must be imagination.
    >> And the Canon 1D Mark IV can't do 10 fps. All lies.


    > From what I hear these cameras do not *measure* focus while they are
    > taking the shots. They just measure focus at the beginning of the the
    > sequence, then use predictive AF to adjust the focus between frames.
    > This focus prediction might be right or wrong.


    You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Or, pray tell, why
    do people complain at times that their camera (like the above)
    in a series of dozens of shots (of action, where no guessing from
    seconds ago will ever match) started to track some foreign object,
    like a fence post that got in the way while tracking the action?

    Of course these cameras use predictive AF: They measure the speed
    towards/away from the camera (needing multiple measurements)
    and then adjust the focus to where the object will be by the time
    the shutter opens.

    >> > I don't have exact numbers for both cameras. I hear the Sony A55 can do
    >> > up to 600-900 shots on one battery charge.


    >> One google for 'sony A55 CIPA' would have told you: 380 life view,
    >> 330 with EVF. Compared to e.g. 1500 with the Canon 1D Mark IV.
    >> Just over 4.5 times more.


    > People who actually have *used* the A55 have reported these 600-900
    > shots figures.


    Sure. CIPA is not "manual AF, depress the shutter until the
    battery goes empty", but emulates a rather different usage
    pattern, with time between shots etc. You can google it and read
    it yourself.

    BTW: The photo industry developed that method for fair
    measurements.

    On the same note, shooting as these people do, the 1DIV will have
    a much larger battery lifetime as well.

    >> Of course, if you don't wait and don't refocus and don't turn off
    >> the camera every so often and so on you can get many more shots
    >> from one battery.


    >> >> How much can a DSLR do?


    >> > Highly irrelevant.


    >> Because it lets your EVF cameras look bad.


    > No, because very few people shoot over 1000 shots/day.


    Of course. Just as very few people use EVFs.


    >> > You actually get more than 300 shots on a battery charge (see above).


    >> Yes, 330. 10% more.


    > No, up to 600-900.


    Not according to CIPA. Which is what the makers consider fair.


    >> > But again, almost nobody shoots 2000 images in a day.


    >> And of course, you can always recharge at night.


    > Unless you are on an expedition with no access to A/C,


    It's sooo trivial to find other reasons, I don't even need to try.

    > in which case you
    > would need to bring additional batteries with you.


    And there *is* a difference between having to bring 4 batteries
    and 17 (taking optimistic battery life).

    >> Almost nobody uses EVFs, either.


    > Wrong.


    Let's see:
    - DSLRs? No (and a minority of cameras)
    - Compact cameras? Name one with EVF, most don't have any VF.
    - Phone cameras? No
    - No camera? Still a rather large part of the world population.
    - Bridge cameras? A small minority of cameras.
    - EVIL? Also a rather small minortity of cameras.
    - Video cameras? Some have an EVF. Rarer than compact cameras.

    >> > http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-
    >> > dslr-viewfinder/


    >> Opiniated, and while correct in some observations, I think it misapplies
    >> them. Doesn't explain why OVFs *must* *always* be wrong about DOF. See
    >> the comments it got.


    > Did you notice those chessboard images? It's very obvious that OVFs show
    > more DOF than there really is.


    Did you notice that the A55 can't work? It's very obvious that
    the majority of light has to go to the light hungry AF system.

    Did you notice that you cite a *single* camera in a *single*
    situation (very shallow DOF) with a *single* focussing screen not
    made for manual focussing or DOF preview as a 'proof' that *all*
    OVFs will *always* misrepresent DOF?

    >> > in fact significant enough. Sometime you need
    >> > to frame very accurately.


    >> Post processing.


    > Which means throwing away parts of the image.


    Yes. Sometimes even a percent or two. Because you didn't chimp
    after the shot, or used the nice big screen on the back, as you
    microadjusted your tripod. After all, post processing is common
    even in the analog world.

    >> I find a big difference between good and usable.


    > The JPEG output of many DLSRs is good, if you set up the camera
    > properly. Not always of course, but for a percentage of JPEGs RAW
    > processing does not deliver better results.


    And yet some photographers think that RAW is giving them better
    results than the inbuild JPEG engine. Especially as they can
    tinker with sharpening (including defining regions to be specially
    treated) etc. etc.

    But if your JPEGs always look as good as RAW, more power to you.
    Mine don't.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2011
    #36
  17. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg says...


    Ah --- interesting snippage. So you agree with all you snipped?

    >> Just as it is pure speculation that an EVF displays images from
    >> the main sensor. It could after all be a secondary sensor!


    > Make an example of one camera with *EVF* from a secondary sensor.


    Make one example of a DSLR not being able to focus while
    doing 10+ fps. That was an expicit claim of yours!

    And you agree with my theory how CHAF works, since you snipped it and
    didn't provide an alternative theory.

    And you agree that the problem of flat batteries is not designed to be
    fixed by users, unlike AF microadjustments?

    And you agree that camera phones rule the earth?

    And you argee that your 'no crop DSLR is sold with' logic was spurious?

    >> >> > The A55 can shoot at 10 fps


    >> >> 9.09 fps.
    >> >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA55/AA55A.HTM


    >> > It's indeed 10fps. This has been tested by pointing the A55 on a running
    >> > stopwatch and taking a series of shots. The A55 will take 20 frames in 2
    >> > seconds. Not always camera reviews are accurate.


    >> Fence post error. That's at best 9.5 fps. Think it through.


    >> Hint: A farmer wants to have a 200 meter fence. He needs a fence
    >> post every 10 meters. How many fence posts does he need?


    >> PS: Why should a stopwatch test be more accurate than a camera review?


    > If the A55 takes one shot every 100ms,


    If the moon was made of cheese, ...
    Claiming the thing you intent to prove leads to circle logic.

    > Point the A55 on a running stop watch and the individual images the A55
    > takes show 1.33s, 1.43s, 1.53s, 1.63s, 1.73s and so on.


    Point one at a stopwatch and see 1.33s, 1.44s, 1.55s, 1.66s,
    1.77s, 1.88s, 1.99s, 2.10s, 2.21s and 2.31s. 9.09 fps.

    Feel free to provide an URL to your mythical stopwatch test.
    Prove that your stopwatch test is accurate, but that a review
    by people who do that for a living isn't accurate.

    Again: you are just speculating wildly.


    And you agree that your hearsay about 'predictive focus' was way wrong?


    >> On the same note, shooting as these people do, the 1DIV will have
    >> a much larger battery lifetime as well.


    > The battery of the 1DIV has a capacity of *25.5 Wh*, while the battery
    > of the A55 has a capacity of *7.7 Wh*.


    So what? The battery of an electrocar is also much larger
    than one for a diesel powered one.

    > http://www.amazon.de/Akku-Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-Li-Ion/dp/B0034CUPA6


    > With 25.5Wh energy the A55 would take 330*25.5/7.7= 1093 CIPA shots.


    So you can fit a LP-E4 into an A55? No? Well, then it's
    irrelevant. Neither can you fit an electrocar battery into the 1D4.

    > And the A55 has in-built GPS and in-built flash, which the 1DIV has not.


    The A55 can't take Canon EF lenses. Which the 1D4 can.
    Guess what is more important to the users of the 1D4.

    > CIPA mandates that "Full illumination flash shall be used for one of
    > every two pictures taken"
    > http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-002_e.pdf


    True, but not applicable to the 1D4. Which is covered by the CIPA.

    > With no flash used and GPS disabled, the A55 (with a 25.5 Wh battery)
    > would even exceed 1500 CIPA shots.


    With wings sewn on and gravity disabled, pigs would fly.
    Unfortunately, while you might sew on wings, you cannot disable gravity.


    >> Did you notice that you cite a *single* camera in a *single*
    >> situation (very shallow DOF) with a *single* focussing screen not
    >> made for manual focussing or DOF preview as a 'proof' that *all*
    >> OVFs will *always* misrepresent DOF?


    > Even if the test were repeated with 25 different cameras, you would
    > still dispute the results.


    The test wasn't repeated, so your point is moot.
    And pure speculation.
    Again.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2011
    #37
    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. Colin Brace

    P&S optical viewfinders

    Colin Brace, Apr 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    748
    Colin Brace
    Apr 3, 2006
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    850
    Doug McDonald
    Aug 20, 2007
  3. albert
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    357
    Dave Cohen
    Dec 15, 2008
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    442
    PeterN
    Jan 26, 2014
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    99
    RichA
    Feb 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page