5 ms·

> Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have bett

> Why? You're looking at the screen to track the target anyway Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast in bright sunlight than even a sunlight-readable screen; and even so, if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. > And with the computational photography, you can just take multiple pictures and synthesize various "exposure times" later. And it'll likely be better than what you set blindly, hoping to get the right combination. I think this shows some disconnect over what many photographers are trying to do with their cameras. The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ Computational photography is an anti-feature for many photographers. Beyond that; you usually aren't shooting blind unless you choose to. Cameras come with metering (and have done so for many decades now), and it's gotten pretty damn good at telling you when your photo's properly exposed. Newer (<15 years old) cameras will often also have a histogram which gives you even more data than an EV meter.

cyberax 2y ago
> Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. > if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. Ask me how I know about this scenario. Oh, or another one I learned at school while taking pictures for the class: if you don't have a perfect vision, and you focus the optical viewfinder until the image is in focus, the actual film image will demonstrate to everyone else exactly how you see the world with your imperfect vision. > The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ And for me, the goal is to take good pictures for my memories, utilizing as much technology and automation as possible. I don't want to spend time learning every function of that 15 knobs on my camera. I want optical zoom and a full-frame sensor, but the same UI experience as on my phone.
- verandaguy 2y ago
  > Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible. > And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. I think what you're describing is a rangefinder, as seen on some Leicas for example. This is correct, but rangefinder cameras are a niche within a niche. Frankly I don't know how rangefinder users make use of that in the first place. > Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience. The fact is that: - Normally, on any camera I've used between Sony and Nikon, one click of the control wheel is +/- 1/3 EV. Hitting it nine times and failing to pay attention to the live preview or EV metering scale sounds like user error to me. - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt. - Assuming it was _less_ than 3EV, most modern cameras shooting in RAW will, for most scenes, be able to give you the dynamic range to still work with the photo in post.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible. Wow, so just like my phone! My point is, the viewfinder is _still_ electronic. It doesn't really provide much advantage compared to just showing an image on the screen. That's why some of the mirrorless cameras don't even have a viewfinder anymore (e.g. EOS M6 Mark II). > I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience. It can be shown on the screen, and the UI can more faithfully reflect the settings. > - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt. Sure. That's why I want GPS, on the photos. But I still want a good optical system, there's just no way around the sensor size and the lens quality.

cyberax 2y ago

> Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. > if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to. Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. Ask me how I know about this scenario. Oh, or another one I learned at school while taking pictures for the class: if you don't have a perfect vision, and you focus the optical viewfinder until the image is in focus, the actual film image will demonstrate to everyone else exactly how you see the world with your imperfect vision. > The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._ And for me, the goal is to take good pictures for my memories, utilizing as much technology and automation as possible. I don't want to spend time learning every function of that 15 knobs on my camera. I want optical zoom and a full-frame sensor, but the same UI experience as on my phone.

verandaguy 2y ago
> Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has. Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible. > And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback. I think what you're describing is a rangefinder, as seen on some Leicas for example. This is correct, but rangefinder cameras are a niche within a niche. Frankly I don't know how rangefinder users make use of that in the first place. > Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later. I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience. The fact is that: - Normally, on any camera I've used between Sony and Nikon, one click of the control wheel is +/- 1/3 EV. Hitting it nine times and failing to pay attention to the live preview or EV metering scale sounds like user error to me. - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt. - Assuming it was _less_ than 3EV, most modern cameras shooting in RAW will, for most scenes, be able to give you the dynamic range to still work with the photo in post.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible. Wow, so just like my phone! My point is, the viewfinder is _still_ electronic. It doesn't really provide much advantage compared to just showing an image on the screen. That's why some of the mirrorless cameras don't even have a viewfinder anymore (e.g. EOS M6 Mark II). > I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience. It can be shown on the screen, and the UI can more faithfully reflect the settings. > - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt. Sure. That's why I want GPS, on the photos. But I still want a good optical system, there's just no way around the sensor size and the lens quality.