3 ms·

Disclaimer: I'm not a real photographer and I don't have any real experience with SLRs, digital or otherwise; I may be completely clueless here. The concept of

by Zak 17y ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a real photographer and I don't have any real experience with SLRs, digital or otherwise; I may be completely clueless here. The concept of a digital SLR has always seemed a bit silly to me. The purpose of an SLR, as I understand it is to show in the viewfinder the same image that will hit the film. The live preview in an electronic viewfinder or LCD screen serves the same purpose, but in theory at least can get closer to the image that will actually be captured. The digital SLR has always seemed like a stepping stone to me; something that would let a film photographer move to digital without having to relearn everything all at once. What am I missing? I'm sure serious photographers aren't just slow to learn. What's the technological advantage of SLR over EVIL?

papersmith 17y ago
LCD viewfinders have had some major disadvantages for demanding photographers including: * low resolution * low responsiveness * poor colour and lighting * drains battery I've tried some high-end LCD viewfinder cameras a few years back, but none felt as snappy as a DSLR. I haven't tried out any of these EVIL cameras, but I would guess that there have been improvements in these areas in recent years.
SandB0x 17y ago
I have a good SLR, and looking through an electronic viewfinder is so poor in comparison (even on an expensive pro-sumer model) it's hard to describe. Our visual system can cope with such a huge dynamic range that it makes little sense to neuter this ability while shooting. An SLR is able to capture RAW data, which can be mapped to different jpeg/whatever images, so there's a big disadvantage in looking at a specific instance through the viewfinder. In common situations the preview and default jpeg output is absolutely fine, but when you get to more challenging lighting you need to trust your eyes at the time, and the awesomeness of RAW later.
- Zak 17y ago
  Your first point makes sense to me, and meshes well with what other posters are saying. As for RAW, I don't see what that has to do with an SLR viewfinder versus digital live preview. A quick google search suggests that all EVIL type cameras support a RAW format.
  - tel 17y ago
    He's referring to the fact that whenever you display an image on an LCD you're losing an incredible amount of data about the the lighting and color. Data that the CCD actually does collect. The comment about RAW is saying that your eye, capturing through a mirror viewfinder, is aware of this level of detail. If you view it through the LCD you miss out. This is unimportant if you only use JPG, because that will be neutered similarly to the electronic viewfinder, but if you are shooting RAW then you're looking for something more subtle and need analog control.
    - SandB0x 17y ago
      Thanks, that's a good explanation. I need to work on my wording.
fr0sty 17y ago
Live preview falls short in many ways: Visual lag: there is always some lag, and blurring if motion is involved with an LCD display. Action shots are just a guessing game. Loss of resolution: The human eye can resolve detail a lot better than a small display. This is especially important for getting accurate focus. There are other factors as well.
- jesseendahl 17y ago
  Re: "Loss of resolution: The human eye can resolve detail a lot better than a small display. This is especially important for getting accurate focus." I couldn't agree more. This is especially true when shooting in low light with a very wide aperture (2.0 and under), as I am a huge fan of doing. I hate flash. Also, good bokeh is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
ascuttlefish 17y ago
My experience with current LCD screens seems to indicate that they're next to useless in very bright situations, including bright sunny afternoons. I have a Nikon D90, which has a pretty amazing LCD, but on very bright days, I rely more on the histogram to gauge exposure because the LCD display is hard to see in bright light. As for the rest of the article, I give it a big meh. To quote a truism I read on flickr all the time, "It's not the camera that takes the pictures, it's the photographer". Get out and take pics. If the small form factor of this camera floats your boat, use it! If you want a bigger sensor and a wider lens selection, keep using your dslr.
rlpb 17y ago
Is manual focus practical to use on an electronic viewfinder? On my P&S it isn't. The resolution isn't high enough; particularly in low light when the image is fuzzy - and that's just the situation when I need to use manual focus.

by Zak 17y ago

papersmith 17y ago

LCD viewfinders have had some major disadvantages for demanding photographers including: * low resolution * low responsiveness * poor colour and lighting * drains battery I've tried some high-end LCD viewfinder cameras a few years back, but none felt as snappy as a DSLR. I haven't tried out any of these EVIL cameras, but I would guess that there have been improvements in these areas in recent years.

SandB0x 17y ago

I have a good SLR, and looking through an electronic viewfinder is so poor in comparison (even on an expensive pro-sumer model) it's hard to describe. Our visual system can cope with such a huge dynamic range that it makes little sense to neuter this ability while shooting. An SLR is able to capture RAW data, which can be mapped to different jpeg/whatever images, so there's a big disadvantage in looking at a specific instance through the viewfinder. In common situations the preview and default jpeg output is absolutely fine, but when you get to more challenging lighting you need to trust your eyes at the time, and the awesomeness of RAW later.

Zak 17y ago
Your first point makes sense to me, and meshes well with what other posters are saying. As for RAW, I don't see what that has to do with an SLR viewfinder versus digital live preview. A quick google search suggests that all EVIL type cameras support a RAW format.
- tel 17y ago
  He's referring to the fact that whenever you display an image on an LCD you're losing an incredible amount of data about the the lighting and color. Data that the CCD actually does collect. The comment about RAW is saying that your eye, capturing through a mirror viewfinder, is aware of this level of detail. If you view it through the LCD you miss out. This is unimportant if you only use JPG, because that will be neutered similarly to the electronic viewfinder, but if you are shooting RAW then you're looking for something more subtle and need analog control.
  - SandB0x 17y ago
    Thanks, that's a good explanation. I need to work on my wording.

fr0sty 17y ago

Live preview falls short in many ways: Visual lag: there is always some lag, and blurring if motion is involved with an LCD display. Action shots are just a guessing game. Loss of resolution: The human eye can resolve detail a lot better than a small display. This is especially important for getting accurate focus. There are other factors as well.

jesseendahl 17y ago
Re: "Loss of resolution: The human eye can resolve detail a lot better than a small display. This is especially important for getting accurate focus." I couldn't agree more. This is especially true when shooting in low light with a very wide aperture (2.0 and under), as I am a huge fan of doing. I hate flash. Also, good bokeh is awesome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

ascuttlefish 17y ago

My experience with current LCD screens seems to indicate that they're next to useless in very bright situations, including bright sunny afternoons. I have a Nikon D90, which has a pretty amazing LCD, but on very bright days, I rely more on the histogram to gauge exposure because the LCD display is hard to see in bright light. As for the rest of the article, I give it a big meh. To quote a truism I read on flickr all the time, "It's not the camera that takes the pictures, it's the photographer". Get out and take pics. If the small form factor of this camera floats your boat, use it! If you want a bigger sensor and a wider lens selection, keep using your dslr.

rlpb 17y ago

Is manual focus practical to use on an electronic viewfinder? On my P&S it isn't. The resolution isn't high enough; particularly in low light when the image is fuzzy - and that's just the situation when I need to use manual focus.