Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 2, 2006, 8:44 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

no aside necessary, and the discussion is whats so special about SLRs, why the SLR. And my arguement is, when better more useable EVF's become available, the mechanical complexity of the moving mirror is going to become more unnecessary.

Yes they are the state of the art, but I dont think its necessarily going to remain that way for ever. So a sophisticated camera without a moving mirror and better EVF is called what?

There seems to be a good deal of discussion about AF systems, as tho its impossible to do this without an SLR system which is patent nonesense. There are reliable AF systems on P&S cameras and rangefinders with varying levels of sophistication that work fine.

SLRs use all this complexity because they have to in order to compose the and evaluate the exposure before the shot, that is with the mirror down, then during exposure the system has to be able to work with the mirror up. They dont use it because its better, they use it because they have too because of the reflex design.

Look at it this way, if you had to start with new camera design with some gains on the technology we have now, would the best answer really be an SLR? With the added complexity and cost I doubt it. take away the need for the prism and suddenly a lot of componentry becomes redundant.

Riley


Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 3:12 AM   #22
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well the thing that you can't do very easily with a rangefinder is focus it outside a fairly narrow range.

Attaching wider angle lenses requires additional viewfinder attachments, and trying to do the same thing for a long telephoto would be ridiculous. Imagine a viewfinder attachment for a 400mm lens. :blah:

An optical viewfinder (whether rangefinder or prism) will always be faster than an EVF, until we get some generational improvements in processor and LCD speeds.

The fastest refresh rate available on an LCD is around 4-6ms or 1/250s at best, to feed a signal through the sensor and onto the LCD adds a few more ms. Unless you can tellus how you're going to make that pipeline approach the speed of light you are going to struggle to convince anyone that an EVF could be fast enough for high-speed work.

Once again, SLR design is not perfect. It has its compromises. But it is a good compromise solution and gives very good performance under a wide variety of conditions. For specialist applications there are a range of other cameras that are just as good or better.

For photojournalists and portrait photographers rangefinders are very appealing, for portrait and landscape photographers larger format cameras yield resolution improvements at the cost of portability and price, for portability P&S cameras blow an SLR out of the water.

But for action photography and wildlife it has no competition, and it is a very good all-rounder.

If you really can come up with a better design then patent it and manufacture it, because the camera market is worth billions and your genius will make you very rich.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 4:22 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

im not sure where on earth you get the idea that it should have an EVF AND an optical viewer, and I think i already mentioned EVF would need to be better. And the shortcomings of rangefinder optical finders arnt disputed

I had a play with an upmarket Sony video over the weekend, it only comes with a rather large LCD and no optic, not sure how big the LCD was but around 4+ inches. It had no trouble at all with follow focus with rather fast moving motorcycles, it had automatic gain for low light (try that with optical v) and of course AF. The motion was smooth and free of the shudder you get out of still camera LCD vision. And the AF coped fine without the smoke and mirrors spoken of here.

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 5:08 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Well the thing that you can't do very easily with a rangefinder is focus it outside a fairly narrow range.

Attaching wider angle lenses requires additional viewfinder attachments, and trying to do the same thing for a long telephoto would be ridiculous. Imagine a viewfinder attachment for a 400mm lens. :blah:


This gives me an impressionof an experiencedhiking photographer,and his rang-finder camera; with tons of heavy glass eye pieces jingling in his camera bag or pocket. :G



http://www.dpreview.com/articles/leicam8/page4.asp


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 5:31 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

or for a bit of wide angle work...

Riley
Attached Images
 
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 5:52 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

That is one awful looking camera IMO!! :twisted::xaranoid::whack::shock::evi l::flame::crazy::cart::-D

:ak47::?:blah:

:flame::?:blah:

:ak47: :homey:




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2006, 5:58 AM   #27
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
The fastest refresh rate available on an LCD is around 4-6ms or 1/250s at best, to feed a signal through the sensor and onto the LCDÂ* adds a few more ms.
Now how much is delay between eye seeing something, your brain consciously reacting to it and finger pressing shutter?
Enough for being much slower than that...
So maybe we should cut of that part from "command chain"?
And that's exactly what nature photographers do when they shoot flying birds, take bursts because it would be about impossible to take single shot at the moment when bird's wings are in good position.
But isn't burst mode unnecessary because you'll see absolutely real time image?


peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Barring some spectacular advances EVFs are always going to have some very significant resolution...
Well, over two and half years old KM A2 has 640x480 EVF which is already sharp enough for not seeing single pixels in EVF image. After release of "successor", A200 there was talk in Dpreview forum that maker of A2's EVF would have had ability to go for 1024x768. And A200 was released two years ago.
So I don't have any doubts that something like 1600x1200 could be well possible now.

Rriley wrote:
Quote:
I had a play with an upmarket Sony video over the weekend, it only comes with a rather large LCD and no optic, not sure how big the LCD was but around 4+ inches. It had no trouble at all with follow focus with rather fast moving motorcycles, it had automatic gain for low light (try that with optical v) and of course AF. The motion was smooth and free of the shudder you get out of still camera LCD vision. And the AF coped fine without the smoke and mirrors spoken of here.
Exactly.
It isn't about availability of technology.
It's that SLR is like religion, it's all-powerfulness has been advertised long enough that it has become dogma and modernizing such takes more than few years, just like it took hundreds years from Christianity to get over torturing and burning alive those ones not singing their songs.

Also maybe seeing advantages of new technology requires mind without ballast of the past.
For example I don't see anything glorious in way how SLRs need blindly made exposure compensation when photographing for example white bird on dark background because you don't have live exposure preview.



And for question about sensor size (which isn't dependant from type of camera's design) in thread's starting post it's very simple, bigger sensor gathers more light meaning less need for amplifying signal and lower noise.


Bob Nichol wrote:
Quote:
SLR cameras have always had mirrors.
Funny thing... otherwise it wouldn't be called as SLR.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2006, 11:28 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
annie57's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,613
Default

as someone who is interested in joining the SLR digital world, is there an SLR digital camera that can accomodate 20 year old yashica lenses? I have a panasonic FZ30 and luv it but just looking at what else is out there?
annie57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2006, 2:11 PM   #29
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

You may be able to get an adapter for the Yashica/Contax mount.

I think you can get one for the Canon cameras, as some people are using the Contax Zeiss lenses.

Of course you will have to put the camera in full manual mode, and you may have some trouble with the reduced frame sensors.

Have a look for companies that do the adapters, they usually tell you what cameras it will be compatible with.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2006, 1:09 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
annie57's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,613
Default

thank you for the information. It sounds like it may be difficult for someone who is a beginner!!!!
annie57 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 10:33 AM.