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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 29, 2004, 2:37 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Default

I understand the evolution of SLR for film cameras: see exactly what the film sees, change lenses without changing viewfinders, etc. The mirror and associated mechanisms just had to be tolerated. But with digital, one can see exactly what the sensor(film) sees without the mirror, etc. So why continue with the mechanical junk?
rondon is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 29, 2004, 3:18 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
Default

1. Interchangable lenses. A 10x zoom lens is a compromise, and nobody seems to be able to do it without some residual chromatic aberation and edge softness. Also, "stick on the front" conversion lenses will never be as good as a true prime wide angle or telephoto lens. You can get exactly the lens you need, optimized for the work you are doing, instead of being stuck with one that does everything pretty good, but nothing excellently.

2. Manual focusing is very difficult to do accurately in an electronic viewfinder because the pixel resolution is too low.

3. Flash photography in low light conditions is almost impossible when it is too dark for autofocus to work, and you can't even see the image in the evf with the available light.

segbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 9:54 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

Even if you keptinterchangeble lenses and went with an EVF instead of the current mirror system. The cost of makingan EVFoptically equivalent to the current mirror system used inSLRs would be prohibitive. The current EVF designs would have to double or triple their resolution, doubleframe rates, and the most costly improvement, become as sensitive to changing light conditionsas the human eye.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 11:22 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Good answers, folks. I always enjoy being enlightened, especially as you have done it with no derogatory remarks.
After reading segbert's reply, I began to think that the cost of a high resolution and image intensified display might be more costly than the mirror system which has been perfected over the years.
Thanks again.
rondon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 29, 2004, 9:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Rondon, you might find this link informative. I learned a lot about view finders from this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...03-03-16.shtml

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2004, 1:35 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 51
Default

I would expect that in a few years we WILL have interchangable lens "SLR"s with a 3-4 megapixel EVF and superb light sensitivity, that perform as well, if not better, than today's mirror SLRs. But the technology isn't there yet.
segbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2004, 3:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

segbert wrote:
Quote:
I would expect that in a few years we WILL have interchangable lens "SLR"s with a 3-4 megapixel EVF and superb light sensitivity, that perform as well, if not better, than today's mirror SLRs. But the technology isn't there yet.

I hope you are right. EVFs have a lot of advantages if they can be made with better resolution and quality. I haven't used the A2, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Still nothing near the quality needed to replace the SLR viewfinder though.

You can usually tell if a setting isn't right through the EVF. If the picture looks right it usually is. But you can't judge the focus like you can with a SLR. And things just look generally crappy. The EVF can display information like flex focus points and a histogram, along with all of your settings. I wish I could get all that in a viewfinder with something near the quality of a SLR.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2004, 5:34 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Interesting thought, Slipe. Projecting the info onto the SLR viewfinder, as is done in "heads up displays" in some planes and cars, would not be difficult. It will probably be a race to see which method proves less expensive.
rondon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 30, 2004, 11:30 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

Very nice answers that's for sure. I must say though, that if one doesn't understand something, especially while asking a question about something, then it doesn't seem quite appropriate to call something 'mechanical junk'. This is just a friendly comment.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2004, 2:37 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Default

You're right, Kenny. I did not intend "junk" to be pejorative. I've been in the electronic design business for many years, and anytime we could replace mechanical devices with electronic ones (mech. relays with Solid State relays, for instance) we did. In that context "junk" was just a collective for all the mechanical devices that in our biased view should be replaced.



rondon 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 9:55 AM.