Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
Rich
sensor come second) the most expensive parts in a DSLR are the mirror
mechanism and the pentaprism. By getting rid of these and replacing
them with an EVF, they eliminate a large amount of cost. Particularly
with higher-end cameras where the shooters demand (and don't in all
cases get them) an optical viewfinder with a 100% field of view. All
LCDs/EVFs that I am aware of provide a 100% view of the scene to be
imaged. Most optical viewfinders do not because of cost. The cost of
a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
Pat
Rich says it, therefore it will happen.
Quick, call Nikon and Canon and tell them that Rich wants them to
change what they are doing.
HEMI-Powered
EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also
eat batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this
make to you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools
spend their money they way they want to.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
ray
> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> Aside from the sensor (and in the case of 4/3rds it's possible the
>> sensor come second) the most expensive parts in a DSLR are the mirror
>> mechanism and the pentaprism. By getting rid of these and replacing
>> them with an EVF, they eliminate a large amount of cost. Particularly
>> with higher-end cameras where the shooters demand (and don't in all
>> cases get them) an optical viewfinder with a 100% field of view. All
>> LCDs/EVFs that I am aware of provide a 100% view of the scene to be
>> imaged. Most optical viewfinders do not because of cost. The cost of
>> a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
>>
> EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also eat
> batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this make to
> you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools spend their
> money they way they want to.
I take it you have not tried one lately. My Kodak P850 does not "eat
David J Taylor
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:16:32 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also eat
>> batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this make
>> to you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools spend
>> their money they way they want to.
>
> I take it you have not tried one lately. My Kodak P850 does not "eat
> batteries at a prodigious rate".
... although cameras where the EVF or LCD has to be used typically have a
rather smaller number of pictures per given capacity of battery than do
those without.
For example, comparing your Kodak P850 with my Nikon D60:
- Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
- Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery, and
yet twice the number of shots.
Cheers,
David
Fred
news:Xns9C08A592BDA...@216.196.97.131...
>>
> EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also
> eat batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this
> make to you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools
> spend their money they way they want to.
>
>
(and do) eat batteries at a prodigious rate (I always have them switched off
anyway), but the same isn't true of the much smaller EVFs, certainly not in
my experience of several years using cameras fitted with EVFs.
Don Stauffer
On the contrary. Almost every SLR I have owned, film or digital, shows
slightly MORE than what is contained by the format.
Mark Sieving
> Rich wrote:
> > imaged. Most optical viewfinders do not because of cost. The cost of
> > a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
>
> On the contrary. Almost every SLR I have owned, film or digital, shows
> slightly MORE than what is contained by the format.
What SLRs have you owned? Of the current Nikon lineup, only the D3x,
D3, and D300 have 100% viewfinders. The rest are about 95% coverage.
For Canon, the 1D MK III and 1Ds Mk III have 100% viewfinders. The 5D
Mk II has 98% coverage, and the rest are about 95%.
Now, there's nothing wrong with 95% coverage. That's perfectly
adequate for almost any practical application. But it is a fact that
only a few SLRs have 100% viewfinder coverage.
ray
I did not agrue that it got more shots - but "prodigious rate"? Come on
now.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>> also eat batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference
>>> does this make to you? YOu simply buy what you like and let
>>> the other fools spend their money they way they want to.
>>
>> I take it you have not tried one lately. My Kodak P850 does not
>> "eat batteries at a prodigious rate".
>
> ... although cameras where the EVF or LCD has to be used
> typically have a rather smaller number of pictures per given
> capacity of battery than do those without.
Exactly, David. I don't see this changing as an EVF has, in
essence, an LCD display that is on 100% of the time, in addition to
whatever drain there may be from it's LCD or it's flash. It is true
that going back to my Nikon 5700 is going back in time, but I got
LESS total capacity in daylight (no flash) on 4 batteries than I
get out of one for my Rebel XSi today. I recently bought a 2nd
battery in antipation of some long car shows starting next month,
but absent Murphy's Law, it's 700+ image life will likely be
plenty.
> For example, comparing your Kodak P850 with my Nikon D60:
>
> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
>
> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
>
> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter)
> battery, and yet twice the number of shots.
>
The entire debate is yet another in the never ending saga of
whether a P & S/EVF is better than a DSLR or vice versa. I used to
be an EVF fan but after 2 tries and a failed buy on a 3rd (that I
returned for charge credit), I switched.
Now, when there are other valid considerations, such as price,
small size, very long zoom ranges, and the like, then, yes, an EVF
can be considered superior.
HEMI-Powered
>> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter)
>> battery, and yet twice the number of shots.
>>
> I did not agrue that it got more shots - but "prodigious rate"?
> Come on now.
>
"Prodigious" by my definition was an ACTUAL 4X battery burn rate vs
my DSLR. You really should try viewing things through other
people's eyes AND their real-world experience before you make light
of it, ray. But, in your case, fools are rarely interested in
facts.
Alfred Molon
@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Pat says...
your post in disbelief. Do you really think a mechanical slapping mirror
thing is the future?
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
>
> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
>
> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery, and
> yet twice the number of shots.
Unless you shoot hundreds of photos per day this is a non-issue. Don't
know about you, but the max. I've ever managed to do was around 350
photos in one day. The overwhelming majority of people probably shoot
way less than 100 photos/day.
David J Taylor
> In article <s98Ol.27743$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
>>
>> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
>>
>> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery,
>> and yet twice the number of shots.
>
> Unless you shoot hundreds of photos per day this is a non-issue. Don't
> know about you, but the max. I've ever managed to do was around 350
> photos in one day. The overwhelming majority of people probably shoot
> way less than 100 photos/day.
On a "good" day I can shoot well more than the 250 shots of the Kodak,
perhaps 500-600 if I'm at a race. I would /have/ to charge and take a
spare battery, probably two. This agrees with my experience when using
EVF cameras.
David
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> Unless you shoot hundreds of photos per day this is a
>> non-issue. Don't know about you, but the max. I've ever managed
>> to do was around 350 photos in one day. The overwhelming
>> majority of people probably shoot way less than 100 photos/day.
>
> On a "good" day I can shoot well more than the 250 shots of the
> Kodak, perhaps 500-600 if I'm at a race. I would /have/ to
> charge and take a spare battery, probably two. This agrees with
> my experience when using EVF cameras.
>
I'm with you, David. On a "good" day at either a museum or at an
outdoor car show, I always run out of juice before my Canon
batteries do. Since digital is "free", and often, lighting is very
changeable, I tend to shoot rather as fast as I can of as many
views of a given subject as I can, all the while watching the
exposures in the LCD. I can delete the obvious bad ones later and
retake shots if exposure is iffy. Thus, while I may only KEEP a
couple hundred from a long "shoot", the camera may easily record
upwards of 750 images.
These days, I tend to use the small built-in speedlite now that the
XSi is a usable high ISO camera (and I can up the speed to
compensate for the low GN), when I am "serious" about flash in a
museum, I take my external flash which has the side benefit of
saving the camera battery.
Again, here's the thing: some folks want to generalize to only
their point of view wrt camera type, whether it be to the low end
as with P & S or the high end as with a premium DSLR, with a great
many EVF fans in between. Honestly, I would still be an EVF man if
I could get the same quality, I'm not excited about carrying around
the weight of even the smallish Rebel, not to mention the issue of
lenses.
But, I don't see how battery life is NOT an issue unless one only
rarely takes more than about 100 pictures even on a "good" day.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> In 5 or 10 years people browsing through the Internet archives
> will read your post in disbelief. Do you really think a
> mechanical slapping mirror thing is the future?
Few people are foolish enough to think the future of photography is
anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is a long time, and
mirrorless is still science fiction for most of us.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>> Unless you shoot hundreds of photos per day this is a
>>> non-issue. Don't know about you, but the max. I've ever managed
>>> to do was around 350 photos in one day. The overwhelming
>>> majority of people probably shoot way less than 100 photos/day.
>>
>> On a "good" day I can shoot well more than the 250 shots of the
>> Kodak, perhaps 500-600 if I'm at a race. I would /have/ to
>> charge and take a spare battery, probably two. This agrees with
>> my experience when using EVF cameras.
>>
>I'm with you, David. On a "good" day at either a museum or at an
>outdoor car show, I always run out of juice before my Canon
>batteries do. Since digital is "free", and often, lighting is very
>changeable, I tend to shoot rather as fast as I can of as many
>views of a given subject as I can, all the while watching the
>exposures in the LCD. I can delete the obvious bad ones later and
>retake shots if exposure is iffy. Thus, while I may only KEEP a
>couple hundred from a long "shoot", the camera may easily record
>upwards of 750 images.
>
>These days, I tend to use the small built-in speedlite now that the
>XSi is a usable high ISO camera (and I can up the speed to
>compensate for the low GN), when I am "serious" about flash in a
>museum, I take my external flash which has the side benefit of
>saving the camera battery.
I don't know of any museum which will let photographs be taken with a
flash. How do you manage?
>
>Again, here's the thing: some folks want to generalize to only
>their point of view wrt camera type, whether it be to the low end
>as with P & S or the high end as with a premium DSLR, with a great
>many EVF fans in between. Honestly, I would still be an EVF man if
>I could get the same quality, I'm not excited about carrying around
>the weight of even the smallish Rebel, not to mention the issue of
>lenses.
>
>But, I don't see how battery life is NOT an issue unless one only
>rarely takes more than about 100 pictures even on a "good" day.
Eric Stevens
ray
> ray added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery,
>>> and yet twice the number of shots.
>>>
>> I did not agrue that it got more shots - but "prodigious rate"? Come on
>> now.
>>
> "Prodigious" by my definition was an ACTUAL 4X battery burn rate vs my
> DSLR. You really should try viewing things through other people's eyes
> AND their real-world experience before you make light of it, ray. But,
> in your case, fools are rarely interested in facts.
OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live with that.
Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor indicate the
difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly short of your threshold.
Rich
45d277...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
You don't have to. If they can save money and increase profits while still
providing what people want, they'll do it.
Rich
216.196.97.131:
> Alfred Molon added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> In 5 or 10 years people browsing through the Internet archives
>> will read your post in disbelief. Do you really think a
>> mechanical slapping mirror thing is the future?
>
> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of photography is
> anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is a long time, and
> mirrorless is still science fiction for most of us.
>
It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
Savageduck
Do you mean, like the one in the Mustang?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David J Taylor
[]
> I don't know of any museum which will let photographs be taken with a
> flash. How do you manage?
> Eric Stevens
Have you been to many motor museums? Flash is usually OK.
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
> On a "good" day I can shoot well more than the 250 shots of the Kodak,
> perhaps 500-600 if I'm at a race. I would /have/ to charge and take a
> spare battery, probably two. This agrees with my experience when using
> EVF cameras.
Maybe you, but the overwhelming majority of people do not shoot hundreds
of photos per day.
David J Taylor
Ray,
I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were /not/ for the
cameras which Jerry was comparing.
The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some of us can
take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an issue, whereas with the
EVF-class of cameras it's something you need to take into consideration
when planning your trip. Whether that's a precise factor of 3, 4, or 5
doesn't really come into it.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
> In article <BcjOl.27985$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> On a "good" day I can shoot well more than the 250 shots of the
>> Kodak, perhaps 500-600 if I'm at a race. I would /have/ to charge
>> and take a spare battery, probably two. This agrees with my
>> experience when using EVF cameras.
>
> Maybe you, but the overwhelming majority of people do not shoot
> hundreds of photos per day.
So different people have different requirements, meaning that blanket
statements such as "Battery life is no problem with LCD/EVF cameras" are
inaccurate, in that they may, or may not, apply to you.
Cheers,
David
Dolts R They
You can haul around 20 extra lbs. of glass+tripod in a camera back-pack but
you can't put a few extra AA cells in a jacket pocket? Get real. 550+ shots
per set of NiMHs (1500+ on a set of lithiums) on my EVF/LCD cameras is more
than enough. If you're any kind of decent photographer that is. That's
equivalent to 15 to 42 rolls of 35mm, 36exp. film. That's many many days of
good shots worth, weeks even, on just one set of cells. Unless you're like
all the online photographers around here that play machine-gun with their
DSLR's in auto P&S mode, hoping one out of one-thousand might turn out by
random chance alone. Then by all means, battery-drain issues in any camera
will be of paramount importance to you.
Hint: When you finally figure out how to use any camera then most every
shot will be a keeper worth printing and framing.
whisky-dave
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9dSdnenK-d2XspfX...@giganews.com...
That sounds painful
Don Stauffer
Whoops- you are right. I had it backwards. STill, 95% is close enough
for me. I have never been bothered by the little bit of extra I get. I
generally crop all my pics a bit anyway- I don't ordinarily like the 3/2
format unless the subject is long and squat.
HEMI-Powered
>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of
>> photography is anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is
>> a long time, and mirrorless is still science fiction for most
>> of us.
>
> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
>
What's an "axel"? Do you mean "axle"? Last time I looked, Hotchkiss
drive had hardly gone away. It is still alive and well and still
used today in trucks. Independent rear suspension has replaced it
in cars and largely in SUVs, but if we're going to use cars as an
analogy or metaphor, I think that far more progress has been made
since, say, the end of WWII than has been made on the basics of SLR
technology.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>>These days, I tend to use the small built-in speedlite now that
>>the XSi is a usable high ISO camera (and I can up the speed to
>>compensate for the low GN), when I am "serious" about flash in a
>>museum, I take my external flash which has the side benefit of
>>saving the camera battery.
>
> I don't know of any museum which will let photographs be taken
> with a flash. How do you manage?
I manage quite well, thank you. I have taken flash pictures in all
the museums of the Smithsonian, the Henry Ford Museum, the Walter
P. Chrysler Musueum, and many other, smaller museums across our
great country. The ONLY place where flash is generally forbidden in
places I've personally been in the DIA (Detroit Institute of Art)
because they are fearful of damage to the paintings. Those places
which still have a flash restriction often still have it not
because there is a real risk of damage to the artifacts on exhibit
but because their policy hasn't been updated since the days of
flash bulbs which literally did explode at times.
Incidently, I also took flash pictures at the Imperial War Museum
in London, but flash was pretty much prohibited in the castles I
visited in Germany.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live
>> with that. Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor
>> indicate the difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly
>> short of your threshold.
>
> Ray,
>
> I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were
> /not/ for the cameras which Jerry was comparing.
>
> The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some
> of us can take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an
> issue, whereas with the EVF-class of cameras it's something you
> need to take into consideration when planning your trip.
> Whether that's a precise factor of 3, 4, or 5 doesn't really
> come into it.
>
David, don't waste your breath on ray. As to my stats, they are
hardly scientific, as I'm sure you're aware. I do recall one day at
the Plymouth Road Office Complex Wild Wheels at Work Day car show
with my now broken Nikon 5700. It was outdoors and I used no flash,
yet I still burned through 3 of my 4 batteries and the 4th was
pretty well dead. I took a total of about 630 images that day.
I think the point is, certainly the one I made, is that an EVF will
drain batteries much faster than a DSLR because it essentially has
an LCD display on at all times, albeit a smaller one. But, this
argument is like so many in this NG, someone makes a comment then
the various factions get involved in a futile debate. Isn't it far
more worthwhile to talk about the relative advantages and
disadvantages of a given digital camera type in terms of a user's
specific needs and wants than this?
Have a great Hump Day, David!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> You can haul around 20 extra lbs. of glass+tripod in a camera
> back-pack but you can't put a few extra AA cells in a jacket
> pocket? Get real. 550+ shots per set of NiMHs (1500+ on a set of
> lithiums) on my EVF/LCD cameras is more than enough. If you're
> any kind of decent photographer that is. That's equivalent to 15
> to 42 rolls of 35mm, 36exp. film. That's many many days of good
> shots worth, weeks even, on just one set of cells. Unless you're
> like all the online photographers around here that play
> machine-gun with their DSLR's in auto P&S mode, hoping one out
> of one-thousand might turn out by random chance alone. Then by
> all means, battery-drain issues in any camera will be of
> paramount importance to you.
>
> Hint: When you finally figure out how to use any camera then
> most every shot will be a keeper worth printing and framing.
>
You have a handle worthy of your logic, Dolts. The discussion isn't
about how many pounds a DSLR user wants to haul around vs the few
ounces of AA batteries, it is the utter stupidity of the original
comments.
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
>> Maybe you, but the overwhelming majority of people do not shoot
>> hundreds of photos per day.
>
> So different people have different requirements, meaning that
> blanket statements such as "Battery life is no problem with
> LCD/EVF cameras" are inaccurate, in that they may, or may not,
> apply to you.
>
Exactly, David! People have widely differing needs AND wants, those
aren't the same. Some want ultra-compact, others want ultra-
quality. Where the elitists and prima donnas fall off the North Rim
of the Grand Canyon in their arguments is ASSUMING that if others
do not do as they do, that they are somehow stupid. If this were
so, then the hundreds of camera models on sale today would not
exist.
Savageduck
> Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>> Few people are foolish enough to think the future of
>>> photography is anything at all mechanical. But, the "future" is
>>> a long time, and mirrorless is still science fiction for most
>>> of us.
>>
>> It'll go the way of the solid rear axel.
>>
> What's an "axel"? Do you mean "axle"? Last time I looked, Hotchkiss
> drive had hardly gone away. It is still alive and well and still
> used today in trucks. Independent rear suspension has replaced it
> in cars and largely in SUVs, but if we're going to use cars as an
> analogy or metaphor, I think that far more progress has been made
> since, say, the end of WWII than has been made on the basics of SLR
> technology.
I didn't notice that typo before, maybe he meant a variation of the
figure skating jump?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
ray
> David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>> OK - so you figure 4x is 'prodigious' and I don't - I can live with
>>> that. Problem is, figures quoted above by David J Taylor indicate the
>>> difference is no more than 3.4x. Significantly short of your
>>> threshold.
>>
>> Ray,
>>
>> I only took some figures off the review pages, and they were /not/ for
>> the cameras which Jerry was comparing.
>>
>> The key difference is that for the sort of number of photos some of us
>> can take in a day, with the DSLR battery life isn't an issue, whereas
>> with the EVF-class of cameras it's something you need to take into
>> consideration when planning your trip. Whether that's a precise factor
>> of 3, 4, or 5 doesn't really come into it.
>>
> David, don't waste your breath on ray. As to my stats, they are hardly
> scientific, as I'm sure you're aware. I do recall one day at the
> Plymouth Road Office Complex Wild Wheels at Work Day car show with my
> now broken Nikon 5700. It was outdoors and I used no flash, yet I still
> burned through 3 of my 4 batteries and the 4th was pretty well dead. I
> took a total of about 630 images that day.
630 images - how many of them were any good? 5,6?
J. Clarke
I was trying to work out a good pun involving Tonya Harding's well developed
backside but couldn't come up with anything that anybody was likely to get.
Alfred Molon
who do not shoot hundreds of photos per day, battery life is a non-
issue.
David J Taylor
[]
> For the overwhelming majority of people (and I am repeating myself
> here) who do not shoot hundreds of photos per day, battery life is a
> non- issue.
Most days I don't shoot more than 100 photos, just on certain days.
Perhaps the majority of people would also shoot more photos than normal on
their own special days - holidays, birthdays, weddings, parties etc - and
would be rather frustrated should their batteries run out!
One aspect which you may not have considered is that when battery life
extends past a few days, you may get out of the routine of ensuring that
you have a full charge at the start of the day.
Battery life - both shelf life and in-use life - isn't a non-issue, it's
an issue you need to manage according to your own requirements and
expectations.
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
Taylor says...
Battery life ceased to be an issue several years ago, with the drastic
reduction of power consumption of digital cameras and the advent of
convenient LiIon battery packs. It's amazing that you bring up this
David J Taylor
> In article <_yPOl.28603$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
> Battery life ceased to be an issue several years ago, with the drastic
> reduction of power consumption of digital cameras and the advent of
> convenient LiIon battery packs. It's amazing that you bring up this
> issue.
Actually, I didn't bring it up.
David
Bob Larter
> In article <_yPOl.28603$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
> Battery life ceased to be an issue several years ago, with the drastic
> reduction of power consumption of digital cameras and the advent of
> convenient LiIon battery packs. It's amazing that you bring up this
> issue.
LCD panels & their backlights use lots of power when in use. All else
being equal, you'll get lower battery life from a camera with an EVF.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Turco
>
> Aside from the sensor (and in the case of 4/3rds it's possible the
> sensor come second) the most expensive parts in a DSLR are the mirror
> mechanism and the pentaprism. By getting rid of these and replacing
> them with an EVF, they eliminate a large amount of cost. Particularly
> with higher-end cameras where the shooters demand (and don't in all
> cases get them) an optical viewfinder with a 100% field of view. All
> LCDs/EVFs that I am aware of provide a 100% view of the scene to be
> a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
Hello, Rich:
The ascendancy of the EVF may, indeed, be inevitable. However, the
demise of "reflex systems" likely won't happen anytime, soon.
When, perhaps, OLED (or some other technology) provides electronic
viewfinders with clarity comparable to their optical counterparts,
we'll see mirrors and pentaprisms go the way of flashbulbs. Alas,
I believe that's still in the rather distant future.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
John Turco
>
> ray wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2009 15:16:32 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:
> []
> >> EVFs also eliminate quite a bit of the quality of a DSLR and also eat
> >> batteries at a prodigious rate. But, what difference does this make
> >> to you? YOu simply buy what you like and let the other fools spend
> >> their money they way they want to.
> >
> > I take it you have not tried one lately. My Kodak P850 does not "eat
> > batteries at a prodigious rate".
>
> ... although cameras where the EVF or LCD has to be used typically have a
> rather smaller number of pictures per given capacity of battery than do
> those without.
>
> For example, comparing your Kodak P850 with my Nikon D60:
>
> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
>
> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
>
> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery, and
> yet twice the number of shots.
>
> David
Hello, David:
The P850's proprietary Li-Ion packs - KLIC-5001 (3.7v, 1700 mAh) and the
thinner KLIC-5000 (1050 mAh) - are hardly big and/or heavy, so, I don't see
how the D60's battery could possibly be "considerably smaller (and probably
lighter)" than they are.
A few months ago, via eBay, I obtained an inexpensive ($8.99 USD, total)
pair of generic KLIC-5001 equivalents, of even higher capacity (i.e., 2000
mAh; same physical size as the Kodak-branded item).
I recently put one new pack, into my own P850 (purchased in May of 2006, and
I'd still been using its bundled KLIC-5001), but haven't tried it, yet. The
other has provided my Kodak Z730 with plenty of "run time," already. (These
two digicams are somewhat comparable in terms of specifications, although,
the Z730 has an optical viewfinder, instead of an EVF.)
Personally, I rarely employ either type, as I've always preferred the LCD
panels, on all of my digital cameras -- with the obvious exceptions of my
first such device (an ancient Largan "Lmini 350") and my only DSLR (Pentax
K100D), which both lack LCD viewfinders on any kind.
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
David J Taylor
John,
From supplier's adverts, the sizes are:
KLIC-5001: 42g, 53 x 35 11.3 mm (~21000 mm^3)
EN-EL9: 45g, 56 x 34 x 14 mm (~27000 mm^3)
With "smaller" I was really thinking about the capacity (1000 mAh vs. 1700
mAh), and it is actually a little larger and heavier. It still offers
twice the number of shots.
The EVF I'd love to see is that on the Panasonic G1 - the whole idea of a
more compact camera, but with the DX (APS-C) sized sensor appeals to me.
Particularly if it takes Nikon DX lenses!
Cheers,
David
Andrew Koenig
news:4A236C71...@concentric.net...
> When, perhaps, OLED (or some other technology) provides electronic
> viewfinders with clarity comparable to their optical counterparts,
> we'll see mirrors and pentaprisms go the way of flashbulbs.
And let us not forget the time lag inherent in every EVF, especially in low
light.
John Turco
>
> John Turco wrote:
<edited for brevity>
> >> For example, comparing your Kodak P850 with my Nikon D60:
> >>
> >> - Kodak P850, 1700 mAh, 250 shots
> >> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/p850-review/
> >>
> >> - Nikon D60, 1000mAh, 500 shots
> >> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d60-review/
> >>
> >> The DSLR has a considerably smaller (and probably lighter) battery,
> >> and yet twice the number of shots.
<edited>
> > The P850's proprietary Li-Ion packs - KLIC-5001 (3.7v, 1700 mAh) and
> > the thinner KLIC-5000 (1050 mAh) - are hardly big and/or heavy, so, I
> > don't see how the D60's battery could possibly be "considerably
> > smaller (and probably lighter)" than they are.
<edited>
> From supplier's adverts, the sizes are:
>
> KLIC-5001: 42g, 53 x 35 11.3 mm (~21000 mm^3)
>
> EN-EL9: 45g, 56 x 34 x 14 mm (~27000 mm^3)
>
> With "smaller" I was really thinking about the capacity (1000 mAh vs. 1700
> mAh), and it is actually a little larger and heavier. It still offers
> twice the number of shots.
>
> The EVF I'd love to see is that on the Panasonic G1 - the whole idea of a
> more compact camera, but with the DX (APS-C) sized sensor appeals to me.
> Particularly if it takes Nikon DX lenses!
>
> Cheers,
> David
Hello, David:
Oh, well...I'm merely glad that my K100D uses four AA cells. :-P
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
John Turco
Hello, Andrew:
Although, an EVF does have the advantage of being able to "gain up," under
darker conditions. (Whereas an optical viewfinder is totally worthless, in
such situations.)
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
David J Taylor
[]
> Hello, David:
>
> Oh, well...I'm merely glad that my K100D uses four AA cells. :-P
>
>
> Cordially,
> John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Just as I am delighted to be rid of multiple cylindrical cells!
Cheers,
David
Alfred Molon
Andrew Koenig says...
> And let us not forget the time lag inherent in every EVF, especially in low
> light.
That is not a time lag, but a feature (camera simulating motion blur, to
deliver a preview of what you get).
Andrew Koenig
news:MPG.24923525...@news.supernews.com...
> That is not a time lag, but a feature (camera simulating motion blur, to
> deliver a preview of what you get).
Or more accurately, a preview of what you would have gotten had you figured
out to press the shutter before you saw what was there.
dj_nme
That makes it more of a "review", rather than a "live view".
This has also been my experience of EVF digicams, even with a fairly
"high spec" digicam like the Ricoh GX200, it has long lag in the EVF in
low light but still slight lag in good light.
I did exmine a Panasonic DMC-G1 and played with it for a few minutes in
an actual camera shop. While it's EVF is quuite clear, it did lag
slightly (even though the shop is well lit) and seemed rather contrasty
(shadows blocked-up in the EVF which had detail in the captured jpeg).
I really hope that Panasonic has solved (what I saw as) the lag and
contrast problem in the next version, the Lumix GH1.
Chris Malcolm
The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
in dim light.
--
Chris Malcolm
Alfred Molon
> The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
> motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
> speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
> a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
> in dim light.
The lag in the Sony R1 changes very clearly as you change the exposure
time. Not all cameras implement this motion blur preview.
dj_nme
> In article <7944ihF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
>
>> The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
>> motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
>> speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
>> a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
>> in dim light.
>
> The lag in the Sony R1 changes very clearly as you change the exposure
> time. Not all cameras implement this motion blur preview.
That may have been what Sony did on their DCS-R1.
It would seem that other manufacturers didn't, don't or can't with their
own EVF digicams.
Morons Morons Everywhere and Not a Pro In Sight
You must not use nor know about many cameras. All my cameras with EVF's
have motion-blur preview. I particularly like my CHDK capable cameras. Then
motion-blur preview will even stop the spinning of a 30,000 RPM disk in
real-time preview in my EVF when cranking it up to shutter speeds above
1/10,000 of a second. Any time that some bleeding moron goes into a
department store and complains about EVF-Lag, I KNOW that they don't
realize they are seeing motion-blur preview due the slower shutter speed
that kicks in from them testing the cameras indoors. Quite useful, for
those that know what they are looking at and know the least bit about
photography. But then again, most of the "pro" advisors in this newsgroup
are complete and utter morons. Count yourself included.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:49:51 +1000, dj_nme <dj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <7944ihF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm says...
>>>
>>>> The lag in the EVFs in low light I have seen aren't a simulation of
>>>> motion blur, because they don't change if I adjust the shutter
>>>> speed. I thought they were due to the need to collect sensor data over
>>>> a longer interval in order to be able to create a viewable EVF image
>>>> in dim light.
>>> The lag in the Sony R1 changes very clearly as you change the exposure
>>> time. Not all cameras implement this motion blur preview.
>> That may have been what Sony did on their DCS-R1.
>> It would seem that other manufacturers didn't, don't or can't with their
>> own EVF digicams.
>
Eh?
David J Taylor
Correct.
David