It is mainly psychological I guess. When I use my S3IS, I am still used to using the viewfinder, even though it is only a small EVF. But even then, it feels different. Especially when I know that I am "watching" a processed image rather than an actual scene. And I am not technophobic.
Do we still need slr type of camera?
- Thread starter cantaresg
- Start date
- Status
zac08
Senior Member
Dun forget, the multiple focusing points... how are you gonna handle that when you're busy holding the camera in front of you and trying to look at the LCD?
Not really... What we are talking about here is a camera with features, but without the mirror reflex mechanism. Thus it is not comparable to a PNS, but rather comparable to any DSLR we currently have. That means that the camera holds, for example in canon case, EF mount, 1.6x crop or FF, hotshoe etc. So in this case, it allows a f/1.4 aperture lens to be used on the camera as well.Anyone able to find a f/1.4 aperture in a PnS ?
I guess that answer the question...
lunas
Senior Member
Oh..my apologies.. :embrass:
It's ok. I think when I started this thread, many of us still have a stereotypical opinion on a DSLR and a PNS. So when I refer to a camera with the SLR mechanism removed, it sounds like a PnS to many. But when such a camera, if ever plausible, exists, the technology will be very much different. Frankly I do not foresee it in the next 5 years, but then again, technology moves so fast that many things are unforeseeable.
LittleWolf
New Member
Emphasis on "still"... but there are already applications where an electronic viewfinder can work much better today, e.g. for infrared photography or in low-light situations.
The optical reflex finder technology is mature; I don't foresee major improvements. Electronic viewfinders are still in their infancy. There's lots of potential waiting to be unlocked.
You'll need power to keep the sensor active, plus you'll need power for the EVF, The difference is probably you'll be changing batteries very much more often.. ;p
HarishSegar
Member
1. Try shooting a bird taking off using a EVF or live view. There is just too much lag with the evf / live view.
2. Try getting a quick framing & focus on an insect / butterfly hidden in the foliage. I am sure you will have a tough time.
Both have pros and cons. For the moment, i am sticking to slr unless some better technology comes forward.
2. Try getting a quick framing & focus on an insect / butterfly hidden in the foliage. I am sure you will have a tough time.
Both have pros and cons. For the moment, i am sticking to slr unless some better technology comes forward.
LittleWolf
New Member
HarishSegar said:
These concerns are certainly justified with what's in the market today. But they are certainly not fundamental problems, so technology can improve. On the other hand, optical viewfinders have pretty much hit their physical limitations - e.g., you cannot get a brighter and larger viewfinder image without capturing more light, and AF SLR viewfinders are pretty dim compared to cameras of the early 1980s era, as the limited light has to be shared between the viewfinder and the AF sensors.
The sole advantage of SLR viewfinders is "through the lens" vision, and people have had to accept a lot of drawbacks in exchange (noise/vibrations, retrofocus lens designs to accomodate the mirror box, adjustment issues). If another technology offers the same features, but without the drawbacks, it is IMHO worth looking into.
Sometimes, it just make me wonder... On one hand, we are taking for granted that technology is omnipotent, that given time, Technology is going to allow us to do almost anything. On the other hand, whatever we thought wasn't possible just several years back just become a reality now. Up until this point, the EVF and liveview just looks too different from the actual scene for me to take fancy of it. The quality is simply unacceptible as of now. But years back, the digital sensors are no where comparable to films as well, but now, it is comparable, if not better, than many films. Many people had welcomed the change from film to digital. Now if one day, the digital technology is again mature to overtake SLR, are we going to welcome the change again?
The biggest advantage of an SLR is the quality of the glass. Bigger and better lenses. It would be crazy to be able to fill place that a body + wide angle zoom + mid range f/2.8 constant aperture + multiple telephoto primes with f/2.8 or f/4 constant apertures, in the form of a prosumer. It's physically and economically impossible.
LittleWolf
New Member
Maybe this is a bit of a paradigm shift. I love clear, natural optical viewfinders, but for the purpose of capturing pictures in a predictable way, it might be more advantageous to see the scene in the viewfinder as the image sensor sees it. E.g., a beautiful color arrangement to the eye might turn out awful if the camera sensor records the colors differently (for example due to insufficient IR filtering). If the premise of the SLR viewfinder is "what you see is what you get", going through the image sensor can come closer to that ideal.
Of course, the viewfinder image shouldn't flicker, jerk, or be noticeably pixelated.
- Status
Similar threads
