Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 17, 2007, 5:25 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
dwkreutzer wrote:
Quote:
Does anybody make a high-quality digital camera that accepts a full-line of interchangable lenses but doesn't bother with the mirror mechanism?
Not yet, but if enough of us keep demanding it, it will happen eventually.
what about a regular viewfinder camera?
seerskater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2007, 8:32 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,559
Default

dwkreutzer wrote:
Quote:
Does anybody make a high-quality digital camera that accepts a full-line of interchangable lenses but doesn't bother with the mirror mechanism?
Yeah. [http://www.steves-digicams.com/rd3000.html] Well, they used to. Not enough people bought it.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2007, 11:45 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

TCav, that appears to be a Canon IS S3. That certainly isn't any kind of SLR, it just has two LCDs like most decent ultrazooms and nearly every video camera.


seerskater wrote:
Quote:
first off id like to say thanks for all these replies! as Hawgwild said, "A guy asks a question, and gets many answers, all of which are great responses."

ok, now i understand the LCD screen part, and i understand all the advantages that DSLR's have over p&s, but i agree with dwkreutz. Why does a camera have to be SLR to be able to change lenses, have better sensors, and more computer power? I though SLR only referred to a little mirror behind the lens. Why cant you get a non-compact camera that has all those features that isn't SLR?
Being able to look directly through the lens that you are using has other advantages besides zero video lag. An lcd can be very prone to glare in sunlight, which an optical viewfinder typically is not. In low light an lcd will tend to get very grainy and blurry due to slow shutter speed, where looking through a piece of glass won't look much different than it does to your eyes (depending on quality of viewfinder and brightness of lens). Also, looking through the lens tends to be much sharper than even the highest resolution lcd, and much better for manually focusing.

Though Brian pointed out that the average person's reaction time is probably 1/2 a second, that's still going to be half a second after you see what you want to shoot, so if your lcd has 1/4 second of lag, your reaction time is now 3/4 second. Add that to the fact that non-DSLR cameras tend to focus and shoot slower than DSLRs, it gets pretty close to a 1 second reaction.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 12:37 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,541
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Are you saying that you think today's P&S digicams are steps toward the inevitable "perfect camera", and that digital SLRs are the product of a global conspiracy to phase out the use of all the interchangeable lenses currently inuse around the world?

I think that today's P&S digicams are attempts to make a camera so simple that even a cavemancould use it, and that digial SLRs are attempts to support those who have specialized needs that can't be satisfied by a "do-all lens".
TCav, I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant that, the way technology seems to be progressing (exponentially), that I wouldn't be surprised to see some "affordable" aps sized sensors showing up in a camera like the S3 or H5, etc. with a decent optical viewfinder. The part I need help with ishow would they make the lenses small enough... or would they make the camera bigger? Or could that be why it hasn't been done yet?

As far as the do-all lens, we have seen that some superzooms right now have very decent macro capabilities, and with better DOF control could do good portraits and landscapes. I feel that a lot of progress in any field is largely market driven, and there may not be a desire for this type of camera yet.

I do agree with you that there are those who like a P&S on auto(my wife), but there are many who post on the forums who wish a P&S with more manual controls, so the future looks interesting..

Technology blows me away. I still marvel at my cell phone. Don't get me started on digital anything. When I was wearing diapers, nobody had a television set. I feel very fortunate to have been able to watch all this stuff happen, and can only imagine what's coming...

Robert
Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 5:20 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Default

dwkreutzer wrote:
Quote:
Does anybody make a high-quality digital camera that accepts a full-line of interchangable lenses but doesn't bother with the mirror mechanism?
Well there is the Leica M8, a digital rangefinder. You can't compose with the lcd on a rangefinder either and unfortunately at around $4-5000US without a lens it is a little bit pricey...
jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 8:19 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,559
Default

Hawgwild wrote:
Quote:
TCav, I apologize if I gave that impression. I meant that, the way technology seems to be progressing (exponentially), that I wouldn't be surprised to see some "affordable" aps sized sensors showing up in a camera like the S3 or H5, etc. with a decent optical viewfinder. The part I need help with ishow would they make the lenses small enough... or would they make the camera bigger? Or could that be why it hasn't been done yet?
No need to apologize. And, yes, that's the reason it hasn't been done yet.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 8:28 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,559
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
TCav, that appears to be a Canon IS S3. That certainly isn't any kind of SLR, it just has two LCDs like most decent ultrazooms and nearly every video camera.
So if we can agree that the requisite for a camera to be called a "REFLEX" camera is the mirror and focusing screen, then I disagree with some of what BillDrew wrote.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 10:11 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Yes I posted this in another thread but I believe it belongs here as well


The more I read the threads on this forum the more fascinated I have become with the comments made about the SLR viewing system. Yes they have an advantage for fast action shooting. But not all photography is sports and wildlife. The DSLR's made today would not qualify as "Professional" cameras by the standards of 20 years ago because of the limitations of the modern DSLR viewfinder. Ie. Not interchangeable. (No waist level finders, action finders etc). Many do not have interchangeable view screens and the screens are small screen with less than 100% view of the final image. All of which can be made up for with LCD live viewing.


tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 11:22 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,559
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
Yes I posted this in another thread but I believe it belongs here as well
... as does my response.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
The DSLR's made today would not qualify as "Professional" cameras by the standards of 20 years ago because of the limitations of the modern DSLR viewfinder. ...
I don't necessarily agree with that.


tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... Ie. Not interchangeable. ...
Actually, 20 years ago, onlya handful of "Professional" SLRs had interchangeable viewfinders.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... (No waist level finders,...
I'll concede that point.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... action finders...
These are available, albeit from third parties.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... Many do not have interchangeable view screens ...
Actually, most do, either from the manufacturers or from third parties. And since none of todays dSLRs have interchangeable viewfinders, swapping focusing screens is a daunting task, but the same could be said for many of the "Professional" SLRs 20 years ago.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... and the screens are small screen with less than 100% view of the final image. ...
Not so. Todays dSLRs have viewfinders that provide at least a95% to 98% view of the final image, but the same was true of the "Professional" SLRs 20 years ago. And there are a number of dSLRs that have a 100% view.

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
... All of which can be made up for with LCD live viewing.
Wait until you try manual focus using a 230,000 pixel LCD viewfinder.

Wait until you try adjusting the aperture for a particular depth of field using a 230,000 pixel LCD viewfinder.

Wait until you try burst shots with an LCD viewfinder. (You may not have noticed it, but your LCD viewfinder goes black when you take a shot, and takes a while to come back. A dSLR allows you to compose between shots as soon as the mirror returns. Most dSLRs allow you to take 3 shots per second, and some as much as five. The LCD display takes 2-3 seconds to refresh after each shot, so bursts are shot blind if at all.)

Just because you don't need to do these things doesn't mean other professionals (and even some amatures) don't.


TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2007, 11:30 AM   #30
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

one other thing to point out (because I haven't seen it brought up yet) with regards to LCD vs. Optical View Finder:

Unless you're using a tripod, composing by use of LCD vs. viewfinder is inherently less stable. It is much more stable to have the camera pressed up to your face.

On an ancillary point - think of panning with just LCD & how much more unstable that would be.

I beleive we'll get to a point where both will be offered on DSLRs (like both are offered on better digicams) but live view won't replace optical. Even if they can eliminate all the other negatives regarding live view - the stable platform for shooting would still not be addressed.
JohnG 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 12:13 AM.