Live View

[Roy5051]

Here's a Question:-

Could Live View on DSLRs be a ploy by manufacturers to do away with the optical viewfinder, as they have already done (in most cases) on Compacts?

Will DSLRs as we know them be confined to history, as rangefinders were (in all but a couple of cases) until recently?

Opinions, please.

[RogerMac]

Here's a Question:-

Could Live View on DSLRs be a ploy by manufacturers to do away with the optical viewfinder, as they have already done (in most cases) on Compacts?

Will DSLRs as we know them be confined to history, as rangefinders were (in all but a couple of cases) until recently?

Opinions, please.

Perhaps you should start a poll rather than a discussion thread but, for what its worth, here is my 2p worth:

If by DSLRs you are using a strict definition with a moving mirror then yes they will almost (not completely) be gone within 2-5 years.

On the other hand if you include cameras with roughly the present form factor, good eye level viewfinders, and the ability to carry large lenses then no they will last for a very long time, but of course that viewfinder will be an EVF
That timescale will depend upon the pace of technology but the mirror-less system cameras will take over.

Roger

[Roy5051]

OK, opinions by Poll, then, but please vote how you believe things will go, not based on your own leanings.

[GeoffR]

No for the very simple reason that all their lenses are computed for a lens to sensor distance including a mirror box. If you do away with the mirror you gain very little advantage other than not having a mirror.

To obtain any real advantage, and delete the optical viewfinder would mean redesigning their entire range of lenses. Far too expensive to contemplate at the moment, especially with new lenses being introduced for the current ranges.

[El_Sid]

I would say that it's inevitable that the optical finder will be replaced by electronics. Once you have digital sensor capable of imaging in real time rather than needing to be processed hours or days after the event it seems fruitless to continue interrupting the optical path with a mirror.

It doesn't even matter if the EVF is not/never will as good as an optical one as smaller lighter cameras and the potential for higher shutter speeds are likely to appeal to most users. Add in the extras such as live histogram displays, easy magnification and 'heads up' 'finder info and the appeal increases.

Personally I'm enough of a luddite to prefer real life to electronics but I can see the writing on the wall...

[daft_biker]

I would say that it's inevitable that the optical finder will be replaced by electronics.

For day to day family snaps and stuff I hope you are right.

Given the choice of what camera to take on holday for snaps of scenery and my brother's getting drunk (etc ) I'd take a smaller, lighter EVF camera with a pankake lens over a SLR and 50mm. Same with general wandering about stuff but then I mostly use a compact for that anyway.

The main reason I have a SLR is for macro as I bon't believe EVF's are as good as my eye and a decent optical viewfinder. I tried an EVF once and didn't like it but my view is mostly based on looking at images on Flickr - it would seem that those using optical viewfinders can focus more accurately and more consistantly than those using EVFs even although they've usually got smaller sensors and greater DoF for the same subjects. (so either it's the photographers that aren't very good or the EVFs aren't!)

Live histogram? Is that useful when you're using flash? 8fps isn't much use to me either - I was fine with the fps on the 300D but the buffer was teeny so it said busy a lot. My DSLRs tend to live on their lowest ISO setting too. What appeal?

[TimF]

I would say that it's inevitable that the optical finder will be replaced by electronics. Once you have digital sensor capable of imaging in real time rather than needing to be processed hours or days after the event it seems fruitless to continue interrupting the optical path with a mirror.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems to be a total non sequitur. Explain please!

It doesn't even matter if the EVF is not/never will as good as an optical one as smaller lighter cameras and the potential for higher shutter speeds are likely to appeal to most users. Add in the extras such as live histogram displays, easy magnification and 'heads up' 'finder info and the appeal increases.

I must be the oddity, cos there's nothing I dislike more than a vast plethora of dubiously 'useful' information especially when it's in the form of pictograms that I haven't a clue what they represent.

A live histogram would probably be the most annoying feature I could think of. Sometimes correct exposure for a scene isn't what the meter says (they see everything as 18% grey remember) and a live histogram is that squared IMHO. Engage brain instead of chasing the meter/techno-nonsense.

[El_Sid]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that it's inevitable that the optical finder will be replaced by electronics. Once you have digital sensor capable of imaging in real time rather than needing to be processed hours or days after the event it seems fruitless to continue interrupting the optical path with a mirror.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems to be a total non sequitur. Explain please!

I'd've thought it was a pretty self-explanatory statement but here goes...

A large format camera has a direct viewing screen that allows focussing and composition to be set up for the true imaging area so a reflex mirror is hardly neccesary. Digital cameras set up for live view also allow the image to be composed/focused/metered not only for the true imaging area but with the actual imaging device and in real time - at which point the imposition of a reflex mirror seems as redundant it would be on a 5x4 Linhof...

I must be the oddity, cos there's nothing I dislike more than a vast plethora of dubiously 'useful' information especially when it's in the form of pictograms that I haven't a clue what they represent.

A live histogram would probably be the most annoying feature I could think of. Sometimes correct exposure for a scene isn't what the meter says (they see everything as 18% grey remember) and a live histogram is that squared IMHO. Engage brain instead of chasing the meter/techno-nonsense.

As always such things are a matter of personal taste. I do find the live histogram on my Panny compact useful (though, granted, not as accurate as I'd like) and I've always struggled to easily see even the quite limited information of my older gear properly in the 'finder. From that PoV I'd be quite happy with superimposed information on the viewing screen - though I do agree that it would need to be limited only to that which is immediately necessary to the taking of the picture - aperture ,shutter, ISO, histogram mostly.

[daft_biker]

Digital cameras set up for live view also allow the image to be composed/focused/metered not only for the true imaging area but with the actual imaging device and in real time - at which point the imposition of a reflex mirror seems as redundant it would be on a 5x4 Linhof...

Real time might be pushing it a bit when it comes to flash metering though. Swinging the mirror out of the way creates a fair bit shutter lag but when using flash you seem to get even more lag when there isn't a mirror to swing out the way.

I'm quite happy using live view for available light action shots but when I need flash I use a SLR or I can't time the shots accurately.

The high ISO capabilities of cameras like the Canon S90 already seems to outperform the AF system's ability to find focus at the long end of the zoom (subject out of reach of the AF beam). I expect having a mirror will be a compromise worth making for some time to come for some types of photography but at least you're no longer stuck with the choice of a compact with too small a sensor or a DSLR that's too big to fit in a pocket.