The big questions about DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. RichA

    Pete Guest

    Agreed and dazzle screws up my night vision making the LCD useless.
    If there is a hand-held meter that can get anywhere near this
    sensitivity, let me know - I've been trying to find a meter for
    low-light.
     
    Pete, Apr 23, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    DanP Guest

    You have just been eaten by our resident P&S troll.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Apr 23, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    DanP Guest

    But I bet you have taken a shot, loked at it on the LCD and decided
    what to do next.
    I do not know of any camera with Live View that can give a better view
    that the optical viewfinder.

    The point is optical viewfinder beats LIve View at the moment.

    If I am wrong please tell me the make of your camera.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Apr 23, 2010
    #23
  4. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Or have one sensor optimized for the EVF, and one for the image, and
    have them flip-flop into place as needed. ;D
     
    John A., Apr 23, 2010
    #24
  5. RichA

    DanP Guest

    Familiar bullshit from a familiar troll.


    DanP
     
    DanP, Apr 23, 2010
    #25
  6. RichA

    Pete Guest

    Each time I have asked which equipment is being used so that I can try
    it myself, I get no answer. Many of my pictures are taken with a
    non-SLR camera because it is more convenient for me, I would like to
    replace it and catch up with reality. What camera(s) do you recommend I
    look at?
     
    Pete, Apr 23, 2010
    #26
  7. Dan, I recall recently that under very low light conditions, the LCD on
    my Nikon D5000 gave a more usable image than the optical finder, but that
    was primarily because of its swivel capability. A brief test I just made
    showed that it was not more sensitive than the optical viewfinder, at
    least once my eyes had become dark adapted.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 23, 2010
    #27
  8. My mirrors are completely different from what you describe.

    *How* did you measure said time on *your* dslr??
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 23, 2010
    #28
  9. RichA

    Tim Conway Guest

    Yet a new name. It morphed again.
     
    Tim Conway, Apr 23, 2010
    #29
  10. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Highly unlikely that it will disappear on consumer SLRs anytime soon.
    It's not just the quality of picture that suffers with a P&S, it's the
    AF delay. Most consumers went the SLR route for two reasons: AF
    delay/shutter lag on P&S cameras was intolerable, and the low light
    performance of the P&S was intolerable.

    Can those two issues ever be addressed on P&S cameras without making
    them as large as a D-SLR? Perhaps, but no one has figured out how to do
    it yet, or it's so expensive that they don't bother.
     
    SMS, Apr 23, 2010
    #30
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You could build a EVF-based FF camera with a relatively small body,
    you could put a FF sensor in a Nikon D60 if you wanted to. But those
    crappy plastic bodies would not be able to support the heavy f2.8 FX
    lenses at all.
     
    RichA, Apr 23, 2010
    #31
  12. Yeah, right; whatever.

    It's 'very valuable' for those who don't know photography.
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 23, 2010
    #32
  13. The exposure was 30+ mins at f8. And with the lens stopped down to f8
    ay ISO 200 I could see nothing. Nor was the camera capable of metering
    an exposure. I used a light meter.
    Unless the LCD brightness auto adjusts itself relative to the ambient
    light level. That's a very handy feature.
    Yet another good reason to carry a light meter :)
    If the camera was set to f8 and ISO 200 nothing could be seen. But if
    I whacked the ISO to maximum and set the aperture to f1.4 there was a
    visible image. I saw no warm spots. There was a lot of stray noise
    swimming about in the LCD like a weak TV signal, but it was seeing
    more detail than my dark adapted eyes could see. But I wasn't prepared
    to hang around for 30 minutes to take the shot. I only had the pop up
    flash which was useless because it fell off too fast in a long narrow
    tunnel. So I ended up light painting the shot rather unevenly with a
    torch.
    I used the torch to get a reliable autofocus.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 23, 2010
    #33
  14. How embarrassing! I remembered correctly that the camera couldn't
    meter it. But the doddering old fool in charge of my memory dropped
    the memories as he tottered back from the archives and instead made up
    some plausible fiction about the light meter.

    After seeing the query in this thread about what light meter could
    meter such dim light I thought I ought to check. Mine doesn't!

    So I went back and looked at my written notes of the time. In fact how
    I measured the exposure was the simple old fashioned method. I opened
    the lens to f1.4, whacked the ISO to max, and found the right exposure
    by experiment. Then I simply adjusted the time for f8 and ISO 200.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 24, 2010
    #34
  15. You're both right and wrong. It's a Sony A550 which has two different
    live views from two different sensors. One can't do it but the other
    can. The normal live view from the special dedicated live view sensor
    isn't as good in dim light as the optical viewfinder or naked eye. But
    the manual focus live view check uses the image sensor, and that gives
    a much brighter image in dim light than the optical viewfinder or
    indeed the naked eye. You can easily read printed text with it when
    the light is too dim to read it with the naked eye. And zoom right up
    to pixel level if you want. It's so amazingly good it has to be seen
    to be believed!
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 24, 2010
    #35
  16. RichA

    Wilba Guest

    Try any current Live View camera with exposure simulation on a macro shot
    with a reversed lens set to the exposure aperture (e.g. f/16). The image in
    the viewfinder will be like -5 EV, while the Live View image will look like
    a well-exposed shot.

    Compare the macro focussing accuracy you get through the viewfinder with
    what you can get zoomed in five or ten times in Live View.
    For normal shots (autofocus in good light), yes. For macro there are huge
    advantages to Live View that mean you can do things that are impossible
    optically, e.g. view the live image on a computer monitor and remotely
    control the camera.
     
    Wilba, Apr 24, 2010
    #36
  17. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    Thanks for quoting these. Some might miss these valuable FACTS the first
    time.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Apr 24, 2010
    #37
  18. I guess you don't know why dialing in the exact shutter speed needed to
    stop the motion of a bumble-bee's wings isn't valuable before you take the
    shot. I guess you don't know why dialing in the exact shutter speed needed
    to produce just the right amount of motion blur to a moving subject is
    valuable BEFORE you take the shot.

    Thanks for proving that you don't know how to use cameras NOR anything
    about photography.

    But we already all knew that, didn't we. Well.... at least you and I
    already knew that. I don't know how stupid everyone else is that doesn't
    already realize you are nothing but a pretend-photographer troll and have
    always been one.

    I seem to have an excellent real-time pretend-photographer-troll-preview
    capability as well. Real photographers can pick out the
    pretend-photographer trolls in less than one paragraph posted by them. You
    qualify as a role-playing pretend-photographer troll every time.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Apr 24, 2010
    #38
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I do. With 30 minute exposures you cannot see to focus through the
    viewfinder. Live view at least increases the brightness and size of
    the image so that you can find something on which to focus.

    And yes, I do know theis from first-hand experience. 7 minutes at
    ISO800 is about the same exposure. That's nighttime with nothing but
    starlight.
    Canon 7D.
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 24, 2010
    #39
  20. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away asshole troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Apr 24, 2010
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.