Are These Features Common/Universal?
Pop Tart
Digital newbie here. I've seen some mention of these two features in
a post or two and would like to know if they are pretty much universal
features in all or most digital cameras.
Regarding the viewfinder:
In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing
that would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words,
besides the subject, all the various settings are visible too.
Sleep mode:
After taking a shot, or shots, the camera will go into sleep mode
after a certain amount of time, thus conserving battery power until
you are ready to shoot again.
Thanks again.
PT
trev
"Pop Tart" <P...@this.isnt.real> wrote in message
news:3b40b7bb....@news2.sybercom.net...
> Hello, and thank you for reading this.
>
> Digital newbie here. I've seen some mention of these two features in
> a post or two and would like to know if they are pretty much universal
> features in all or most digital cameras.
>
> Regarding the viewfinder:
> In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing
> that would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words,
> besides the subject, all the various settings are visible too.
Well on mine NO. It only show's the Area covered when you zoom, plus the
focus area and two lights at the side to tell when the focus lock is done
and flash ready
> Sleep mode:
> After taking a shot, or shots, the camera will go into sleep mode
> after a certain amount of time, thus conserving battery power until
> you are ready to shoot again.
>
Mine does that
> Thanks again.
>
> PT
Tumbleweed
"Pop Tart" <P...@this.isnt.real> wrote in message
news:3b40b7bb....@news2.sybercom.net...
>
> Digital newbie here. I've seen some mention of these two features in
> a post or two and would like to know if they are pretty much universal
> features in all or most digital cameras.
>
> Regarding the viewfinder:
> In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing
> that would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words,
> besides the subject, all the various settings are visible too.
Extremely unusual. Fora start, you'd need SLR capability to see exacty whats
on the LCD. Next, you'd need stuff that displayed that rather some clear
glass. SO that is more expense, and only gingt o be found on high end
cameras (I'm sure someone will point out the one or two exceptions but we
are generalising here...)
> Sleep mode:
> After taking a shot, or shots, the camera will go into sleep mode
> after a certain amount of time, thus conserving battery power until
> you are ready to shoot again.
Very common.
Now, are you any the wiser?
--
Tumbleweed
Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)
Eric
the coolpix cameras manipulate the viewfinder to give you a
aproximation of what you're taking and it moves when you operate the
zoom.
狂人
>Hello, and thank you for reading this.
>Digital newbie here. I've seen some mention of these two features in a
>post or two and would like to know if they are pretty much universal
>features in all or most digital cameras.
>Regarding the viewfinder:
>In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing that
>would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words, besides the
>subject, all the various settings are visible too.
That's electronic vewfinder... likely you can see each pixels showing up as
well... It is a "feature" that is starting to show up lately...
I personally don't like it, because it is NOT a real optical view finder,
and likely will cause some pretty big problems when you are trying to do
night photography...
>Sleep mode:
>After taking a shot, or shots, the camera will go into sleep mode after a
>certain amount of time, thus conserving battery power until you are ready
>to shoot again.
This is pretty much the standard...
--
===Team OS/2, Team OS/2 at Taiwan, ICE News Beta Tester. Bovine Team===
======Warped Key Crucher, And OS/2 ISP CD Project Member. TBA #3======
Owner of PC End User Web Site http://www.pcenduser.com/
Java 1.1.8 - MR/2 ICE REG#:10510 - OS/2 T-Warp 4.0
ICQ# = 8943567
Al, N2NKB
Tumbleweed wrote in message <9hqor3$7dt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>"Pop Tart" <P...@this.isnt.real> wrote in message
>> In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing
>> that would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words,
>> besides the subject, all the various settings are visible too.
>
>Extremely unusual. Fora start, you'd need SLR capability to see exacty whats
>on the LCD.
The Olympus 2100 is an SLR, with an LCD "viewfinder", in addition to the larger
LCD display in the back. The viewfinder also shows the settings, and you
can select how many settings that you actually want to view.
I find the electronic viewfinder very handy on sunny days. One can even view
previous shots through the viewfinder.
Al
狂人
Wrong... Olympus 2100 is NOT an SLR... where's the prism/mirror or similar
setup? It does NOT exist on 2100... For that, you will have to go for
E-10... Now that is a real SLR...
LCD inside a viewfinder doesn't make it an SLR...
R.J.F. Stewart
wrote:
> >In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing that
> >would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words, besides the
> >subject, all the various settings are visible too.
>
> That's electronic vewfinder... likely you can see each pixels showing up as
> well... It is a "feature" that is starting to show up lately...
>
> I personally don't like it, because it is NOT a real optical view finder,
> and likely will cause some pretty big problems when you are trying to do
> night photography...
Having spent the last 30-odd years in the TV industry, I find the concept of
an optical viewfinder on an electronic camera very odd indeed. To the best of
my knowledge no professional television camera has ever used one since the
old Iconoscope cameras that were abandoned in the 1950s.
All the optical methods are flawed, considering the job a viewfinder is
supposed to do. A separate viewfinder doesn't see exactly the same view, and
one that intercepts the light path in the lens in order to see the same view
either makes the camera less sensitive, if it is a TV camera, or requires a
clunky mechanical arrangement to flip a mirror out of the way if it is a
still camera. An optical viewfinder makes the camera more bulky and less
manoeuvrable because it effectively has to have a human head fixed to the
back of it.
The output of an electronic camera is an electronic signal, so the only way
to monitor what it is actually producing is with electronic instruments, the
minimum requirement being a picture monitor. Also, a huge advantage of
electronics is that components that are connected by wires rather than light
paths do not have to be fixed in any particular orientation relative to each
other. The viewfinder can be separate from the camera, and any size you like,
so you don't have to put your head up against an eypiece to squint through a
tiny lens, and in some modern cameras, the lens and CCD assembly can be
separated from the bulk of the electronics, giving even more flexibilty and
enabling more shots that would be impossible any other way.
These factors have been exploited by the TV industry for the last half
century or so, and have been so successful that the use of optical
viewfinders has never been contemplated. Eventually the manufacturers and
users of electronic stills cameras will catch up with this way of thinking.
Maybe in another half century?
Rod.
狂人
>Having spent the last 30-odd years in the TV industry, I find the concept
>of an optical viewfinder on an electronic camera very odd indeed. To the
>best of my knowledge no professional television camera has ever used one
>since the old Iconoscope cameras that were abandoned in the 1950s.
It is very simple... today's high resolution digicam have VERY SMALL pixels,
and the light sensivity is extremely bad... at night, the frame rate of my
CP990's LCD slows down so much that it is difficult to aim, and anything
that's not GLOWING is almost always black... Good luck trying to shoot some
night shots whith people and city light behind them...
>All the optical methods are flawed, considering the job a viewfinder is
>supposed to do. A separate viewfinder doesn't see exactly the same view,
>and one that intercepts the light path in the lens in order to see the
>same view either makes the camera less sensitive, if it is a TV camera, or
>requires a clunky mechanical arrangement to flip a mirror out of the way
>if it is a still camera. An optical viewfinder makes the camera more bulky
>and less manoeuvrable because it effectively has to have a human head
>fixed to the back of it.
I'm perfectly happy with a slightly heavier camera if I can see the
viewfinder as clearly as I can with my old Nikon FM2... After such a long
time playing with digicams, I go back and picked up the FM2 just to play
around with it... That reminded me that TRUE prism based SLR still delivers
the best low light and resolution to your eyes.
You might think it is difficult to manoeuver with your eyes fixed on the
viewfinder, but it isn't. It actually didn't make very much of a difference
to me. I had gone back to film SLR for some photo shoot that requires
film... and I find that I'm perfectly fine with it, I also took alone my
CP990, and I really didn't feel I have any problem getting a proper angle
for my shots.
Electronic viewfinder might be fine for some jobs like motion videos, but
for still photo, SLR is still the best. You do not often use manual
focusing, but for still photography, this can be very useful. You can't get
a razor sharp focus with electronic viewfinder, you can easily do that with
standard SLR cameras.
As for optical viewfinders on non-SLR cameras, they are good for backups,
when you are running low on power or when the place is too dark to use the
electronic viewfinder.
>The output of an electronic camera is an electronic signal, so the only way
> to monitor what it is actually producing is with electronic instruments,
>the minimum requirement being a picture monitor. Also, a huge advantage of
> electronics is that components that are connected by wires rather than
>light paths do not have to be fixed in any particular orientation relative
>to each other. The viewfinder can be separate from the camera, and any
>size you like, so you don't have to put your head up against an eypiece to
>squint through a tiny lens, and in some modern cameras, the lens and CCD
>assembly can be separated from the bulk of the electronics, giving even
>more flexibilty and enabling more shots that would be impossible any other
>way.
The problem is that you can't monitor it all... just compare the resolution
of the LCD and the actual photo. TRY manual focus with LCD... 15 to 30FPS at
full resolution, now this requires some very serious processing power as
well as some pretty hefty LCD system...
For example, Canon D30 digital SLR is capable of over 500 shots on one
single battery, plus 50% of the photo uses the camera's internal flash...
this is quite a bit better than their G1 digicam, which also uses the same
battery. Even if the D30 have to actuate a lens setup that is a lot more
power hungry than the tiny lens on G1... Because it does NOT have to leave
the LCD on all the time, it can save a lot of power... with the additional
battery grip, you can shoot well over 1000 shots...
>These factors have been exploited by the TV industry for the last half
>century or so, and have been so successful that the use of optical
>viewfinders has never been contemplated. Eventually the manufacturers and
>users of electronic stills cameras will catch up with this way of thinking.
> Maybe in another half century?
Well, that's because you are not thinking in terms of high resolution still
photography, but rather you are stuck at the low resolution age thinking...
Find me a cheap and small electronic viewfinder that can display the full
2048x1536 at true color... you can't... Find me a high resolution CCD that
is cheap and is easily capable of extremely high ISO rating... again, it
does not exist.
R.J.F. Stewart
wrote:
> TRUE prism based SLR still delivers
> the best low light and resolution to your eyes.
Irrelevant. The purpose of a camera is to deliver the best picture to the
storage medium (whatever it is), not to your eyes. What you see with your eyes
only needs to be good enough to be a guide.
> You might think it is difficult to manoeuver with your eyes fixed on the
> viewfinder, but it isn't. It actually didn't make very much of a difference
> to me. I had gone back to film SLR for some photo shoot that requires
> film... and I find that I'm perfectly fine with it, I also took alone my
> CP990, and I really didn't feel I have any problem getting a proper angle
> for my shots.
Can you fix your SLR camera to the end of a monopod which you then hold at
arm's length and frame a shot from several feet above your head? or from under
a vehicle? or from the other side of a fence? or inside a cage a couple of
inches away from a venomous insect? Can you get a bug's eye view from an inch
above the ground without getting your clothes dirty? Can you hold your optical
camera above your head from a seat in a plane and take a picture of the people
behind you? I've done all these things in the year or so I've owned a digital
still camera, but I'm only beginning to discover all the new types of picture
that can be taken without the restriction of having to get my head behind the
camera and squint through glass. If you're happy with what you can do with
your SLR, then that's fine, but for me, photography is about taking pictures,
and if the new technology enables me to take more pictures, then I regard that
as an improvement.
> The problem is that you can't monitor it all... just compare the resolution
> of the LCD and the actual photo. TRY manual focus with LCD... 15 to 30FPS at
> full resolution, now this requires some very serious processing power as
> well as some pretty hefty LCD system...
The resolution of the viewfinder isn't relevant. It's only a guide. Mine has
something called "focus assist", (the same as "peaking" in a TV camera) which
makes the correct focus setting more obvious, and the camera has auto focus
that can be switched to several modes. I just use whatever seems appropriate,
and if all else fails I can take several shots and pick the best one because
the storage medium is re-usable. (I think film photographers call this
"bracketing", an impressive name for "trial-and-error", now made a lot less
wasteful thanks to electronics).
> For example, Canon D30 digital SLR is capable of over 500 shots on one
> single battery, plus 50% of the photo uses the camera's internal flash...
> this is quite a bit better than their G1 digicam, which also uses the same
> battery. Even if the D30 have to actuate a lens setup that is a lot more
> power hungry than the tiny lens on G1... Because it does NOT have to leave
> the LCD on all the time, it can save a lot of power... with the additional
> battery grip, you can shoot well over 1000 shots...
This is true. So far, digital still cameras have greater power consumption
than film cameras, but I do not find it a problem, as it does not prevent me
from taking pictures. I can easily carry as much battery power for as many
pictures as I have the memory cards to take, and the batteries can be
recharged quickly and cheaply.
> Well, that's because you are not thinking in terms of high resolution still
> photography, but rather you are stuck at the low resolution age thinking...
The resolution of my digital camera is adequate for what I want to do. If I
can print my pictures on the biggest piece of paper it is comfortable to hold
without seeing any sign of the pixels, then more resolution would be a waste
of money for me. If I ever want to make a picture the size of a barn door, I
will borrow or hire the necessary equipment, (probably film this year, and who
knows what in 5 years time). I don't call this being "stuck" with a
limitation; I call it using what is appropriate for the job, and not wasting
resouces on things that although they may be desirable are actually
unneccessary to get the job done.
> Find me a cheap and small electronic viewfinder that can display the full
> 2048x1536 at true color... you can't...
There wouldn't be much point making a 2" display with 2048x1536 pixels, even
if it is possible, because you couldn't see them. I'd agree that the present
ones could do with a bit of improvement, but I'm sure there is enough
commercial pressure to ensure that this happens over the next few years.
What is "true colour" though, in a display that can be used in different
environments? It's only possible to judge colour consistently if the colour
temperature of the display is the same as that of the environment in which it
is used, and it's a bit awkward to make this variable. In fact it isn't done.
The television industry has evolved what is probably the most practical way of
dealing with this, which is to standardise the colour temperature of colour
displays and the control rooms in which they are used, and to separate the
tasks of framing and colour adjustment. Professional television camera
viewfinders aren't colour at all, because the job of the camera operator is to
frame and focus the shot, leaving exposure and colour balance to others
elsewhere. They're not even LCDs, but small monochrome cathode ray tubes, and
larger ones can be plugged as required.
Given the impracticality of using a TV-style vision control room with a
digital stills camera, the next best thing is to rely on measurement of a
white card, or fixed repeatable camera settings and previous experience. It's
not ideal, but even with these limitations I can still take more pictures, and
more different types of picture, than I ever could with film. My camera has an
optical viewfinder, but I hardly ever use it. I've used them on film cameras
for many years, but now that I no longer have to, I feel that I've been freed
from a restriction, rather than had one imposed.
Rod.
Sean G Gilley
> These factors have been exploited by the TV industry for the last half
> century or so, and have been so successful that the use of optical
> viewfinders has never been contemplated. Eventually the manufacturers and
> users of electronic stills cameras will catch up with this way of thinking.
There's a big difference, though. In the television industry, the camera's
subjects are always lit appropriately. That's not true with a still camera.
Until the flash lights the subject, that is.
Don't get me wrong. My camera has an electronic viewfinder, and I like
it for the most part. But there are times when I know the flash will
illuminate my subject when the picture is taken, but all I can see through
the viewfinder is blackness. How can I take a picture under those
circumstances? I can guess, or I can turn on enough lights (if I'm indoors)
to be able to see the things I'm taking pictures of.
It really is a problem. I've missed shots because I couldn't see well enough
to know when to take the picture.
Sean.
狂人
>In article <3b4197a2$4$qnivqjrv$mr2...@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>, 狂人
>wrote:
>> TRUE prism based SLR still delivers
>> the best low light and resolution to your eyes.
>Irrelevant. The purpose of a camera is to deliver the best picture to the
>storage medium (whatever it is), not to your eyes. What you see with your
>eyes only needs to be good enough to be a guide.
Wrong, because it isn't good enough. Delivering the best picture does not
exactly mean that you can properly aim and compose a picture. It just mean
the camera can do its job, but when the LCD slows down to 1 to 0.5 frame per
second, you might not be able to do your job of aim and composing
properly... Why do you think Sony started to include REAL optical viewfinder
on some of their cameras?
>> You might think it is difficult to manoeuver with your eyes fixed on the
>> viewfinder, but it isn't. It actually didn't make very much of a difference
>> to me. I had gone back to film SLR for some photo shoot that requires
>> film... and I find that I'm perfectly fine with it, I also took alone my
>> CP990, and I really didn't feel I have any problem getting a proper angle
>> for my shots.
>Can you fix your SLR camera to the end of a monopod which you then hold at
>arm's length and frame a shot from several feet above your head? or from
>under a vehicle? or from the other side of a fence? or inside a cage a
>couple of inches away from a venomous insect? Can you get a bug's eye view
>from an inch above the ground without getting your clothes dirty? Can you
>hold your optical camera above your head from a seat in a plane and take a
>picture of the people behind you? I've done all these things in the year
>or so I've owned a digital still camera, but I'm only beginning to
>discover all the new types of picture that can be taken without the
>restriction of having to get my head behind the camera and squint through
>glass. If you're happy with what you can do with your SLR, then that's
>fine, but for me, photography is about taking pictures, and if the new
>technology enables me to take more pictures, then I regard that as an
>improvement.
I see that you seems to own a Nikon CoolPix 900 series camera, so do I, I
have a CP990... the flexability is nice, but I'd trade it all for a true
digital SLR.
>> The problem is that you can't monitor it all... just compare the resolution
>> of the LCD and the actual photo. TRY manual focus with LCD... 15 to 30FPS at
>> full resolution, now this requires some very serious processing power as
>> well as some pretty hefty LCD system...
>The resolution of the viewfinder isn't relevant. It's only a guide. Mine
>has something called "focus assist", (the same as "peaking" in a TV
>camera) which makes the correct focus setting more obvious, and the camera
>has auto focus that can be switched to several modes. I just use whatever
>seems appropriate, and if all else fails I can take several shots and pick
>the best one because the storage medium is re-usable. (I think film
>photographers call this "bracketing", an impressive name for
>"trial-and-error", now made a lot less wasteful thanks to electronics).
Well, that is NOT good enough... I have NOT found any prosumer digicam that
is capable of the kind of autofocus that I ask for... The autofocus often
focus on the wrong thing and pretty darn slow to boot, even if Nikon's CP990
is one of the fastest responding/focusing prosumer digital camera around.
And as well the manual focus on most prosumer camera are exceedingly
difficult to use, because you cannot turn the focusing wheel like you can on
SLR cameras. As for focus bracketing, I haven't heard of a prosumer digicam
that is capable of doing that. Or one that can allow continuous shooting
with indepedent autofocuse on each and every shot.
On an SLR, you do not have to review the photo as hard as you sometimes need
to when using a prosumer digicam, because you can SEE the camera have
good/bad focus on the intended target and can compensate before pressing the
shutter all the way down. You can't do that with non-SLR digicams... And
I've had a LOT of photos that looked perfectly FINE on LCD, but turned out
to be so blurred that is unuseable, and just focused well enough so that you
can't see it on LCD.
>> For example, Canon D30 digital SLR is capable of over 500 shots on one
>> single battery, plus 50% of the photo uses the camera's internal flash...
>> this is quite a bit better than their G1 digicam, which also uses the same
>> battery. Even if the D30 have to actuate a lens setup that is a lot more
>> power hungry than the tiny lens on G1... Because it does NOT have to leave
>> the LCD on all the time, it can save a lot of power... with the additional
>> battery grip, you can shoot well over 1000 shots...
>This is true. So far, digital still cameras have greater power consumption
>than film cameras, but I do not find it a problem, as it does not prevent
>me from taking pictures. I can easily carry as much battery power for as
>many pictures as I have the memory cards to take, and the batteries can be
> recharged quickly and cheaply.
Yes, it is easy to lug around a bunch of batteries, I did that with my CP990
as well... but it would be much better if I can just forget about battery
once and for all.... take 2 battery that's installed on the portrait grip
and basically forget about the battery for once would be very nice.
>> Well, that's because you are not thinking in terms of high resolution still
>> photography, but rather you are stuck at the low resolution age thinking...
>The resolution of my digital camera is adequate for what I want to do. If I
> can print my pictures on the biggest piece of paper it is comfortable to
>hold without seeing any sign of the pixels, then more resolution would be
>a waste of money for me. If I ever want to make a picture the size of a
>barn door, I will borrow or hire the necessary equipment, (probably film
>this year, and who knows what in 5 years time). I don't call this being
>"stuck" with a limitation; I call it using what is appropriate for the
>job, and not wasting resouces on things that although they may be
>desirable are actually unneccessary to get the job done.
Part of the reason I want a digital SLR is that it isn't a problem with the
resolution, but the stupid shadow noise that virtually ALL prosumer digicam
produce in great quantity... virtually every camera from 2.1MP and up will
do it... All except Canon G1 When it is set to record at ISO 50... Which
makes it even slower than before.
What would be a beautiful sun rise are pretty much ruined by the shadow
noises...
>> Find me a cheap and small electronic viewfinder that can display the full
>> 2048x1536 at true color... you can't...
>There wouldn't be much point making a 2" display with 2048x1536 pixels,
>even if it is possible, because you couldn't see them. I'd agree that the
>present ones could do with a bit of improvement, but I'm sure there is
>enough commercial pressure to ensure that this happens over the next few
>years.
I'm talking about the electronic viewfinders they put in place of the
optical viewfinder... I can see each and every pixel on the damn thing,
which means, the resolution is too low.
>What is "true colour" though, in a display that can be used in different
>environments? It's only possible to judge colour consistently if the colour
> temperature of the display is the same as that of the environment in which
>it is used, and it's a bit awkward to make this variable. In fact it isn't
>done. The television industry has evolved what is probably the most
>practical way of dealing with this, which is to standardise the colour
>temperature of colour displays and the control rooms in which they are
>used, and to separate the tasks of framing and colour adjustment.
>Professional television camera viewfinders aren't colour at all, because
>the job of the camera operator is to frame and focus the shot, leaving
>exposure and colour balance to others elsewhere. They're not even LCDs,
>but small monochrome cathode ray tubes, and larger ones can be plugged as
>required.
I'm just talking about 24/32bit color, AKA True Color... Some (cheaper)
display are not capable of doing so.
Marvin Margoshes
"Pop Tart" <P...@this.isnt.real> wrote in message
> Hello, and thank you for reading this.
>
> Digital newbie here. I've seen some mention of these two features in
> a post or two and would like to know if they are pretty much universal
> features in all or most digital cameras.
>
> Regarding the viewfinder:
> In looking through the viewfinder, one sees exactly the same thing
> that would show on the LCD screen if it were on... in other words,
> besides the subject, all the various settings are visible too.
Not on either of the two digicams I own.
>
> Sleep mode:
> After taking a shot, or shots, the camera will go into sleep mode
> after a certain amount of time, thus conserving battery power until
> you are ready to shoot again.
>
Should be on all. Most have this feature.
> Thanks again.
>
> PT