1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Live view in DSLRs

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jul 2, 2007.

  1. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    An interesting reply. Here are my comments.


    You are correct I have not used live view on a DSLR. I have used it on many other digital cameras of various makes. I based my comments on my use of those other cameras. If DSLR live view is different then I'm wrong.

    What do you regard as enough? I was basing my comment on my Minolta 7D which is not good enough for truly critical judgment even when the picture is magnified. By critical judgement I'm meaning being able to discern the hairs on the head of a damsel fly at about 1:2 magnification. At this point I was going to tell you the number of pixels in the 7D screen but now I'm in a panic because I've mislaid the manual :). How many screen pixels does your camera have? I'm obviously not talking about the sensor resolution.

    There's also an element of subjectivity here as well. What might be good enough for one person may well not be good enough for another.

    Again I base my comments on the cameras that I have used (Nikon, Fuji, Sony) and on my 7D. Again an element of subjectivity creeps in. 'Surprisingly good' doesn't really help. To me a screen would be surprisingly good if it was usable in bright sunlight.

    Maybe I could fit a shade but that's another accessory to worry about.

    Yes of course it is. With a traditional viewfinder you can see well enough to judge critical focus and also to see the whole frame. In order to do the same with an electronic screen one would have to be switching back and forth between 'full frame' and 'magnified' mode. In addition, if the desired point of focus, was not in the centre of the screen you would need to scroll in order to find the bit you want. All of the above formed part of my opinion.

    In this regard I own (and sometimes use) an 'angle finder' that also offers 2x magnification of the screen. I have precisely the same comments about that and don't use it very much for those reasons.

    I make the same comment about 'surprisingly well' - it doesn't mean very much. My own comment was based on the fact that I'm often, indeed usually, working at f16 or smaller and at that aperture the viewing screen is so dark that not much can be discerned even in a traditional viewfinder (except the presence of unwanted highlights). Given my comments about electronic screens and sunlight my comments about Dof are not very surprising.

    1:1 and larger.

    Of course not - whatever gave you that idea. I don't believe that I said or implied any such thing.


    Thanks for the response. Maybe I should try an E330 :).

    MickLL
     
  2. Monobod

    Monobod Phantom of the forum

    I think that MickLL is being a bit severe. Firsty, there is nothing at all 'wrong' with close up photography. There are a multitude of still life subjects that are taken 'close up', not just bugs. There is the advantage with these subjects that they are not crawling into and out of focus, so there is plenty of time to check DofF and exposure, composition etc....

    The use of a 'live view' screen in a home studio with controlled lighting and set up, I'm sure would be very useful.
     
  3. sey

    sey Well-Known Member

    in a purely personal subjective and emotional response, i feel that using any type of screen on a camera other than a viewfinder and holding the camera away from my eye, makes my photography less personal and more by remote control! I feel less a part of what i'm doing and that to me is less satisfying.

    i understand the usefulness of a live view flippable screen in burgy type situations or ground level shooting etc., but once the camera is held away from my eye, there is a feeling of it not being my eye and that to me is not what my photography is all about. that is why m/f and l/f never seriously attracted me.

    even a small compact digital, if it has no viewfinder, i won't use it.

    as i said this is purely personal and subjective and the technical difficulties of camera shake etc don't even enter the equation

    so to sum it up 'no'.
     
  4. vicb981

    vicb981 Well-Known Member

    I didn't like live view when I first had one on a camera; but I soon realised that it was useful in all types of application. I've just come back from vac where I used live view for pics I could never have even attempted with a viewfinder, from insects to views of buildings through windows. (Nearly lost camera from tenth floor of hotel in Switzerland doing this!) The most useful is for exposure adjustment; most of the reviews I've seen don't nmention this. Now I would't buy a camera without it; after TTL flash, it's the most innovative feature on a camera ever. It does take getting used to, and in bright light it can be difficult. (But I could use a camera in strong light a couple of inches away from butterflies in Italy, so the screen brightness isn't a great problem.) It might be difficult with a long lens, but I've not tried that yet. This is one feature where digital is better than film; being able to check the pic after in digital is no real substitute, even though you can delete. But as I say it does take some time to get used to it. That's probably why reviewers don't usually like it or dismiss it as unnecessary.
     
  5. John_K

    John_K Well-Known Member

    Live View! A Waste of time and effort when you should use the viewfinder anyway, close to your face to hold the camera steady, unless you are one of the oiks who hold the camera at arms length to get their snap. (Just how do they mamage to get them sharp that way anyway?)
     
  6. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Have you ever used liveview on a tripod? Especially with the optional grid lines it rapidly becomes the only way to take close ups!
     

Share This Page