Do we still need slr type of camera?

[advrider]

holding the camera right to your face has it disadvantages too. all the oil on the screen.

 

[lsisaxon]

In the past, cameras are built with a lens that focus light onto a film and a separate viewfinder for framing the scene. This has a disadvantage as the scene as appeared to the viewfinder and through the lens may be considerably different due to parallax.

The innovation of SLR (single lens reflex) cameras has changed this radically, in the way that the viewfinder is able to view the scene through the same lens that the image will be taken. Due to this, another advantage is that you are able to change the lens and still able to compose the scene without much difficulty. You are not able to do that in a fixed-lens camera.

However, as we enter the digital age, the scene has changed yet again. Now, with ccd/ cmos imaging, live view is possible even on point and shoot cameras, which make viewfinders increasingly redundant especially in smaller PNS cameras. In fact, most camera still holds a viewfinder mostly for decorative purposes, they are almost never used for phototaking.

That said, the later models of DSLR now possess the technology of live viewing as well. Now, with live viewing technology, is this going to make the viewfinders on DSLR redundant in the near future, since we will still be able to frame the scene on the LCD screen? Is the SLR mechanism going to be useless? Is there still a point in keeping the SLR technology, since from now on, a camera can use changeable lenses even without a mirror reflex to redirect the view to the viewfinder?

Just wondering what the shutter lag is like on liveview mode. I suspect it may be much slower, so I guess SLR is still required.

 

[arpinkor]

The view in the SLR's viewfinder is updated at the speed of light. Until the day comes when EVF/liveview LCD can update at this speed, the prism/mirror in the SLR will not be obsolete.

 

[cantaresg]

Have you ever tried holding a SLR/DSLR and using only the LCD, frame your pic? Try that with a heavy lens and see whether you can still take a pic without it getting blurred or whatever. Most of us who use SLR place it close to the body/face to get more stability.

I definitely agree with the point on stability. Personally I feel better framing through viewfinder, because I am looking at the scene that I am shooting. With liveview, I feel detached from the scene.

Just wondering what the shutter lag is like on liveview mode. I suspect it may be much slower, so I guess SLR is still required.

I have not used a DSLR with Liveview mode yet, but I think it should work like a DSLR with mirror locked up. Thus the shutter lag should be equal, if not shorter than the current DSLRs.

I am definitely for the SLR mechanism. So does it mean that we will never see the SLR technology going obsolete like how digital imaging replaced the film technology, and Liveview on PNS replaced the need of a VF?

 

[lsisaxon]

I have not used a DSLR with Liveview mode yet, but I think it should work like a DSLR with mirror locked up. Thus the shutter lag should be equal, if not shorter than the current DSLRs.

I don't think so otherwise the PnS would already have less shutter lags than DSLRs.

 

[cantaresg]

I don't think so otherwise the PnS would already have less shutter lags than DSLRs.

So you are referring to a Pns? I was referring to a 40d or the Olympus series at liveview mode.

The view in the SLR's viewfinder is updated at the speed of light. Until the day comes when EVF/liveview LCD can update at this speed, the prism/mirror in the SLR will not be obsolete.

Even if the view in the viewfinder is able to update as soon as the scene changes, we are not able to react as fast. As long as the liveview LCD is able to update the scene fast enough for our purpose (probably 30fps) it is good enough.

 

[lsisaxon]

So you are referring to a Pns? I was referring to a 40d or the Olympus series at liveview mode.



Even if the view in the viewfinder is able to update as soon as the scene changes, we are not able to react as fast. As long as the liveview LCD is able to update the scene fast enough for our purpose (probably 30fps) it is good enough.

Like you, I haven't have any experience with liveview, so I don't know how is the shutter lag like. I'm expecting it to be more like a PnS because it's got to switch electronically from preview mode to capture mode. For Nikon D3 and D300, the mirror will still flip down momentarily for AF unless in tripod mode it will use contrast detection, which again will be slow. I'm not expecting Liveview to be faster than the normal DSLR mode. I think for the D3 and D300, the Liveview mode is 15fps.

 

[cantaresg]

Like you, I haven't have any experience with liveview, so I don't know how is the shutter lag like. I'm expecting it to be more like a PnS because it's got to switch electronically from preview mode to capture mode. For Nikon D3 and D300, the mirror will still flip down momentarily for AF unless in tripod mode it will use contrast detection, which again will be slow. I'm not expecting Liveview to be faster than the normal DSLR mode. I think for the D3 and D300, the Liveview mode is 15fps.

Perhaps... I do not know how the camera works though. In future, these technical issues will probably be ironed out. But I will be really dismayed to see the technology to be replaced by liveview. But the alignment of the optical elements is a serious advantage for non-dslr design that deserves looking into.

 

[lsisaxon]

Perhaps... I do not know how the camera works though. In future, these technical issues will probably be ironed out. But I will be really dismayed to see the technology to be replaced by liveview. But the alignment of the optical elements is a serious advantage for non-dslr design that deserves looking into.

I still think speed will be compromised. Digital PnS has been around longer than DSLRs but speed till now is still slow, especially the contrast detection AF.

 

[grantyale]

Contrast detection is not likely to be as effective as phase correlation for autofocusing. Phase-detection AF knows where and how much to move the lens at the first glance at the scene, while contrast detection-based AF needs to scan the possible AF range to look for a maximum contrast location. That said, contrast detection has come a long way and its algorithm has been improved over the years. With faster readout speed of sensors and ultrasonic AF drives, contrast detection can be useful when subject motion isn't fast and AF speed isn't critical.

Without a mirror (actually two mirrors), phase detection is unlikely to be performed.

Another thing is continuous operation of the sensor generates heat that may affect the signal-to-noise ratio.

===edit====
lsisaxon you are quick~

 

[Deadloner]

holding the camera right to your face has it disadvantages too. all the oil on the screen.

saying about oil on the screen, they may just modified the LCD screen to something like a flip screen. When you wish to preview the pictures, turn the screen around and it will be auto default to the preview screen.

Anyway in SLR/DSLR, your setting can be seen through the viewfinder, so it may not affect your shoot I guess. This way it prevent your screen from getting oily or even scratches in some sense.

 

[lsisaxon]

Contrast detection is not likely to be as effective as phase correlation for autofocusing. Phase-detection AF knows where and how much to move the lens at the first glance at the scene, while contrast detection-based AF needs to scan the possible AF range to look for a maximum contrast location. That said, contrast detection has come a long way and its algorithm has been improved over the years. With faster readout speed of sensors and ultrasonic AF drives, contrast detection can be useful when subject motion isn't fast and AF speed isn't critical.

Without a mirror (actually two mirrors), phase detection is unlikely to be performed.

Another thing is continuous operation of the sensor generates heat that may affect the signal-to-noise ratio.

===edit====
lsisaxon you are quick~

Yeah.. that's why for Nikon D3 and D300, the focusing is still performed by flipping the mirror down for the phase detection AF module to work in the handheld mode.

 

[catchlights]

SLR cameras is the way to go..
you can look at the medium format digital cameras, it will have many years to go, but maybe not on the consumer type of cameras.

 

[cantaresg]

MF is nowhere as portable still, so for me, it is still going to be SLR. IIRC, AF also uses CMOS type sensors right? What if the imaging CMOS can be used for phase detection AF one of these days? This may be a good many years to go, but this should give a more accurate AF. But then again, this may have to do without the SLR mechanism.

 

[lsisaxon]

MF is nowhere as portable still, so for me, it is still going to be SLR. IIRC, AF also uses CMOS type sensors right? What if the imaging CMOS can be used for phase detection AF one of these days? This may be a good many years to go, but this should give a more accurate AF. But then again, this may have to do without the SLR mechanism.

It's different.. There is some sort of split prism optics over the AF sensor. If it were so simple, they would have used the same sensor for AF and metering. ;p

 

[catchlights]

tell me you can shoot handheld portraits with a live view lcd without handshake

 

[Deadpoet]

One fine day, I will wake up, my DSLR with an optical view finder will fail, and I will have to go get a new camera. On that fine day, there will be no optical SLR finder in the market anymore.

How will I react? Well, that will depend on one thing. I will look thru the electonic view finder, and I will look at the subject with my naked eyes, I will look back and forth and then, if what I see thru the view finder matches what I see with my nake eyes, pass. Next, I will pan the camera fast while looking thru the electronic view finder, if there is no blurrrrrrrrr and I don't get a headache, pass. I will replace my trusty old DSLR.

Otherwise, I give up photography.

The day will come, the only question is when, when optical view finder WILL BE REPLACED by electronic view finders.

 

[cantaresg]

It's different.. There is some sort of split prism optics over the AF sensor. If it were so simple, they would have used the same sensor for AF and metering. ;p

Yes it is not so simple. I may be dreaming and may well be so for some time to come. But I am convinced that it will happen one day.

The day will come, the only question is when, when optical view finder WILL BE REPLACED by electronic view finders.

If that day ever comes, I hope my EOS 5 has not failed on me. I'd rather go back to film than an EVF.

 

[pai]

i like using the optical viewfinder. but it's a matter of time before we get dslr spec'd cameras with only an lcd/evf for framing lah. and it won't be a bad thing, as long as they don't replace slr cameras.

 

[kongping]

I think the future is video, with each frame possessing the resolution of a photo taken by current DSLRs, or even better.

Technology will be improved such that we can select depth-of-field after capture.

Size and weight will be reduced for true portability, and still cameras will be a thing of the past, as far as journalism is concerned.

Optical viewfinder / EVF is a sideshow if you ask me.