Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2004, 8:15 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Isn't the internet great? Here's some of my observations at least:

1. Any poor soul asking for camera advice will get the automatic 'dSLRs are better' -> They have to be, they cost more(think double) after all the lenses are added!
2. 2nd whammy - Not any cheapo lens. Except for a few, the next question is what lens to get and again the automatic 'L lenses are better'. Who is to argue now that we've just triple the price? Let's not forget that any high-line Tamron or Sigma lenses would have been perfectly adequate here...
3. Macro - It comes for free in those 8Mpixels prosumers cameras albeit with a better DOF. Plus don't forget to add this lens (or lenses because some has two macro modes wide/tele) to your carrying bag [/u]and[/u] the final bill.
4. Did I mention IS? Everyone in the Canon forum gloats about it except that one has to pay 'extra' for this feature. Did one of the EVF digicam actually comes with it included in the purchasing price?
:idea:

Photography is all about skill and the control of light and not how expensive one's equipments are.
When is the last time anyone shoot with ASA 800 film? One can modulate the light through the camera, but one can also create it (through flashes or other means) when there's not enough of it. I can bet everyone here that the pictures will come out better too when properly illuminated than just boosting up the ISO. Granted there are cases where flashes are not allowed (or inconvenient), but this is only a small percentage.
There are times when dSLRs are essential, but also others when they are not needed... or required. Fast action is one of them and even on thoses occasions my 10D can't track moving birds fast enough - I need a 1D mrkII, but my wife only let me have the A2 as a 2nd camera! :-):-):-)

... plus the family now refuse to help carrying the camera bag!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2004, 9:41 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

And just to play devils advocate, there are times when a flash ruins the picture even though more light is exactly what's needed.

I've never seen a picture of an owl (even with off-camera flash) where the flash didn't create really nasty steel eyes (they don't go red, they go a harsh silver.)

"way-off camera flash" would do it, eventually. It's gotta, given the physics and optics involved. but I've never seen anyone with such a setup in the wild.

Eric

ps. IS in the camera body is one of those things which will eventually take over. It's only logical. But Canon has so much invested in IS lenses (with their price premium), I really wonder how they'll deal with that revolution when it comes.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2004, 10:23 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
I've never seen a picture of an owl (even with off-camera flash) where the flash didn't create really nasty steel eyes (they don't go red, they go a harsh silver.)
Small thing to fix in Photoshop as long as you got the plumage right (heck you can even create a nice catchtlight)!



Quote:
ps. IS in the camera body is one of those things which will eventually take over. It's only logical. But Canon has so much invested in IS lenses (with their price premium), I really wonder how they'll deal with that revolution when it comes.
The competition will force the issue - Witness the E-TTL2: Minolta has ADI distance integration since day one, Nikon followed it years ago -> Canon only decided to enable it last year even though this was a know issue for a long time: They knew it too and have been retrofitting their lenses to include the distance encoder for a while already. The flash didn't change... (they could just give us the firmware update!)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2004, 10:47 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Maybe it's my skill with PS (actually, I'm sure it is) but I couldn't create something where the eye color and catch light looked correct. I can do something that looks fairly good, but it's better to get it right in camera (and I though the point of this set of posts was about getting & using the right camera and equipment... and my point is that some times using a flash to get more light is really the wrong thing to do! That the faster lens is useful for something other than sports and stopping action. Of course, my example is not exactly common... but I felt I should mention it point out another side to your comments.)

I completely agree that the IS-in-camera is inevitable. Completely. What I wonder is what Canon will do. Canon has a vested interest in it not happening, but I think it will. That situation always makes for interesting corporate watching. Will they do it late (and try to hold on to the IS-lens-price-premium concept) or will they try to push the boundaries, like they do in some other areas, and accept that IS in lens is going away and they have to give up on that part of their profit system.

Eric

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2004, 8:12 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
Maybe it's my skill with PS (actually, I'm sure it is) but I couldn't create something where the eye color and catch light looked correct. I can do something that looks fairly good, but it's better to get it right in camera (and I though the point of this set of posts was about getting & using the right camera and equipment... and my point is that some times using a flash to get more light is really the wrong thing to do! That the faster lens is useful for something other than sports and stopping action. Of course, my example is not exactly common... but I felt I should mention it point out another side to your comments.)
... To every problem there's a solution and lighting can be tricky at time and it's something a good photographer should learn: Diffused/bounced or the use of flashes at multiple angles could all solve the problem. Studio photographers are dealing with the same problem (even with glass frames on people eyes) too, but are they going to be shotgun it with the ISO dial if they want to sale the pictures?
As to the Photoshop you can always copy the "good eyes" from another shot and paste it... with minmum fuss. Remember this is digital so use all the tools which are available. Using different pictures is also a common technique to extend the dynamic range for things that do not move: Take two shots at different EV and overlay one on top of one another!




Quote:
I completely agree that the IS-in-camera is inevitable. Completely. What I wonder is what Canon will do. Canon has a vested interest in it not happening, but I think it will. That situation always makes for interesting corporate watching. Will they do it late (and try to hold on to the IS-lens-price-premium concept) or will they try to push the boundaries, like they do in some other areas, and accept that IS in lens is going away and they have to give up on that part of their profit system.
For one I don't see how this will work yet will full-frame camera (the sensor will move outside of the 24x36 frame) so Canon position is still quite assured with the 1Ds! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2004, 5:52 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

Getting back to the original topic, it is of course obvious to everyone coming from a P&S digicam world to a DSLR that they lose the neat live view on LCD screen feature.

Adding a swivel to the viewfinder, you get even more capability -- above the crowd or above the fence shots taken with the camera pointing towards the subject and the photographer looking up towards the swiveled viewfinder. You can also take waist-level viewfinder type shots. (You could simulate such shots by removing the viewfinder (typically on pro cameras only -- those with removable viewfinders / focus screens), but that's pretty rare.)

So the question comes in two parts: (1) Will DSLR's ever progress to the point where the optical viewfinder is replaced with an internaldigital one. (2) Will DSLR's ever come with a live-view (ideally movable) digital display.

(1)'s a tough one. The quality of optical viewfinders can be very tough to match, and one of the major pleasures of shooting with a good camera. This is one reason for Leica's popularity, and also one important reason for SLR's popularity. It certainly is a factor in mine and others' purchase decisions. Now, is a digital viewfinder going to be "good enough" at some point, or will the optical one always be superior and desirable? I think that a strong case can be made for the optical ones for the forseeable future. The real standard in image quality is thesubject itself, not the capability of the camera / imaging system.It may be a good ways off before a digital viewfinder matches optical quality, and some time further before they become affordable, and some other time before their battery drain is negligable, but whenever that happens (and that might be sooner than I think), there could be some advantages: E.g. giving you a detailedaperature-adjusted DOF preview without the light loss. Giving you an exposure-adjusted view (and the ability to turn that off so that you can compose and then adjust exposure). In the meanwhile, and perhaps into the future, shooting & immediately reviewing on the LCD / PDA/ laptop is a pretty convenient alternative.

(2) Seems to be easier -- if you do this in addition to an optical viewfinder, it's win-win. Notably, many P&S digicams have taken this approach. SLR's have a tougher technical challenge, but one for which there is some motivation.

The following quotes from a recent interview shows that Konica Minolta expects to achieve (2), but is less sure about (1).


[align=left]
Not EVF, or Monitor based Live View?

Helberg:
One of the main advantages of a film SLR camera is the optical viewfinder. Are you going to use the optical viewfinder for your Digital SLR camera?

Ishizuka:
Konica Minolta has not specified thus far. However the answer is simple, as it succeeds the concept of the Dynax 7. Generally for SLRs, the clarity of the optical viewfinder is one of the selling points.

Helberg:
So, could a monitor based live-view be an option for your future Digital SLR development?

Ishizuka:
Looking towards future developments, live-view function is a major possibility for digital SLR, which requires alliance with a suitable device supplier.

Helberg:
Then, you have not given up on the possibility.

Ishizuka:
We would not be positive about utilizing an EVF, but the live-view is a possible feature for our future digital SLR development.
[/align]
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04...7interview.asp


Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2004, 8:42 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
hedwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Default

I don't believe that it is possible for a dslr to have and evf. This gets back to the pet peaves thread from a while back. This would be a dslr like camera. There used to be slr and zlr types to choose from with film. the slr had removeable lenses and the zlr just had the one fixed lens. I haven't seen an advertisement for a new zlr in recent memory. I guess they could come up with a camera body with an evf and detachable lenses, but really what is the point just for live histogram, and a visual of the wb.
hedwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2004, 7:23 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 69
Default

Can someone please explain the true meaning of SLR, as far as I know this stands for Single Lens Reflex, for me is something with detachable lenses which let me see trough them. I saw the schematics, the pentasystem etc... but what about the "single lens reflex"? I heard the Minolta A2 has an impressive EVF of 922,000 pixels (640 x 480 x 3 primary colors). What if some "digicam" maker come up on the market with a eyelevel-viewfinder about 2Mpixels (not necessarily truecolour) and "replaceable" lens? What kind of a camera would it be?
pauza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2004, 9:06 AM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,544
Default

Single Lens Reflex - There's only a single lens, ie you view and shoot through the same lens which is different than some older cameras which are still reflex, ie there's a mirror in the viewfinder, but you shoot through a different 2nd lens, the two lenses are coupled together however. Here's an example of T(win)LR: http://www.photographical.net/tlr_ttl.html

Reflex - could means either reflection or the action of the mirror moving out of the way to clear the path for the image to go through the film chamber instead of being reflected to the viewfinder. Some older Canon pellicle or RT (Real-Time) cameras are still called SLR even though they don't have a reflex action. The image is projected to both the viewfinder and the film chamber at the same time by a fixed semi-transparent mirror (or the olympus E10/20 using a prism in the film chamber)... resulting in faster shutter release and no blank-out period as well as a quieter operation: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c...989_eosrt.html
:idea:

EVF - also a single lens camera with no reflex mirror, but the picture is captured electronically "through-the-lens" as the CCD would see it to the EVF. ie if you block your hand in front of the lens you won't see anything. This is different than range finders or most Point/Shoot cameras where you see through one path and the picture is captured through a different path with the associated parallax and all... (folks can also misplace their fingers in front of the lens when taking a picture while the viewfinder is all cleared) :-)

hedwards wrote:
Quote:
I guess they could come up with a camera body with an evf and detachable lenses, but really what is the point just for live histogram, and a visual of the wb.
You still miss the point:
The main difference between EVF and OVF is to be able to see the image before the shutter is released. For example put both cameras on manual and adjust the shutter/aperture can you tell the resulting pictures on a dSLR or are you gessing with the -2..-1..v..+1..+2 scale? On an EVF not only you "see" the real picture as it's going to be stored to flash, but there's no need to review the picture either (and even if you do it'll pop-up in the EVF!) augmented by a real-time histogram as the shutter/aperture is adjusted... plus all the associated zooming functions of the rear LCD before any pictures are taken!
On a dSLR what you see in the optical viewfinder is not what you get until you reviewed with the rear LCD. One may see the real thing optically, but not what's finally captured (ie the exposure can be off or even the focus/DOF) -> the need to review the rear LCD afterward.
Bottom line: you see a post-processed picture vs a real optical image prior to the CCD/sensor processing. Each has its own benefits.

Other advantages of EVF are lighter cameras and cheaper cost (ie. no prism, and no separate LCD inside the viewfinder for exposure data). The other feature made possible with the electronics is the NVG or night vision system. In total darkness where you can't see with optical viewfinder, the A2 turn to B/W mode and boost the light up so you actually "see" and focus just like on TV during the wars


pauza wrote:
Quote:
What if some "digicam" maker come up on the market with a eyelevel-viewfinder... and "replaceable" lens? What kind of a camera would it be?
I like that idea, the best of both world... Please somebody make one!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 11, 2004, 3:15 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
Default

My first digital camera was an Olympus E-10 - a great camera though a bit slow writing to card.

The E-10 and E-20 have optical viewfinders and simultaneous real time LCD display. They accomplish this with a "split prism" which splits the image. The sensor's (CCD type) sensitivity is boosted so it needn't take much light from the OVF. I didn't realize how unique this is until it was stolen and I began looking for a replacement camera.

I think it's a great idea but I understand it won't work with a CMOS type sensor. I think they are unable to furnish a continuous image like a ccd.

David
Amateur is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.