PDA

View Full Version : Live view in a digital SLR?




bousozoku
Feb 18, 2006, 07:27 PM
Since I saw information about the Olympus E-330, (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp) I've been wondering if people would actually view the LCD in order to get a photo.

I've seen plenty of consumers holding their point and shoot cameras a bit away from their faces in order to get a shot. I've tried it a bit with my mobile phone to get the feel of it.

Do any of you think that this will become popular with SLRs?



pdpfilms
Feb 18, 2006, 08:01 PM
Since I saw information about the Olympus E-330, (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp) I've been wondering if people would actually view the LCD in order to get a photo.

I've seen plenty of consumers holding their point and shoot cameras a bit away from their faces in order to get a shot. I've tried it a bit with my mobile phone to get the feel of it.

Do any of you think that this will become popular with SLRs?
No.

The SLR camera is designed to be used as a viewfinder camera. The resolution (ultimately infinite) is much higher than any LCD can display, especially if it's limited to the size of the camera's back. Also, adding this function (so i hear) impedes normal operation with the reflex mirror.

I will always use the viewfinder of an SLR, even if the option of a live view LCD was there.

p0intblank
Feb 18, 2006, 08:04 PM
pdpfilms is correct. As far as I know, dSLR cameras only allow the user to view through the viewfinder. There may a couple cameras that let you view via the LCD, but I'm not sure. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT and love it. I find it much more comfortable to look through the viewfinder rather than staring at an LCD.

SpAtZ
Feb 18, 2006, 08:09 PM
Even when I used a P&S I still used the viewfinder. You take completly different pictures when using a live feed.

bousozoku
Feb 18, 2006, 08:43 PM
The E-300 was reasonably popular with underwater photography apparently, so it's been said that the Live view will help with that, which seems totally reasonable.

Then again, the first camera I used was a roll film camera with a viewfinder displaying an upside down image. Perhaps, the people using medium format would find it more appealing.

Drizzt
Feb 18, 2006, 08:49 PM
I believe this will be quite useful for macro photography, especially when you can digitally zoom in 10x before taking the picture. No optical viewfinder can beat that for manual focus assist. Plus, even if you don't want to use the LiveView, you can always use the conventional OVF. Plus with the odd form factor, you can add a flash onto the hotshoe and still use the built-in flash as a fill.

You don't have to listen to me, I'm just an OLY fanboy :D

Le Big Mac
Feb 18, 2006, 08:51 PM
pdpfilms is correct. As far as I know, dSLR cameras only allow the user to view through the viewfinder. There may a couple cameras that let you view via the LCD, but I'm not sure. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT and love it. I find it much more comfortable to look through the viewfinder rather than staring at an LCD.

Yeah, it's pretty tough to design, since the view is through the lens, whereas on a point and shoot it's through a little viewer above the lens. The reason I use the LCD on a P&S is because the viewfinder is crap. On an SLR it's far better than the LCD.

Clix Pix
Feb 18, 2006, 09:00 PM
Since I saw information about the Olympus E-330, (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp) I've been wondering if people would actually view the LCD in order to get a photo.

I've seen plenty of consumers holding their point and shoot cameras a bit away from their faces in order to get a shot. I've tried it a bit with my mobile phone to get the feel of it.

Do any of you think that this will become popular with SLRs?


Most SLRs are pretty heavy, especially with certain lenses on them. Holding the camera out at a distance in order to look at the LCD preview is pretty much going to guarantee some serious camera shake. Not to mention that in bright daylight, very often it is hard to get a really good view of the LCD, which can cause problems with proper composition. Most of the time someoone who is shooting with a DSLR is serious about whatever their subject is and they're aiming for more than just simple snapshots so are going to want to get the best image that they can.

I prefer using a viewfinder, even with a small P&S camera, and even if I had a DSLR with an LCD "live" preview screen, I would still be viewing my subject(s) through the viewfinder.

cgratti
Feb 18, 2006, 09:25 PM
I would never shoot looking at the LCD, your pics would look like they were taken in an earthquake.

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2006, 09:34 PM
I agree with everyone else who would be less than thrilled with shooting through an LCD. But the real viewfinder still works on the Olympus, right? I guess this might add some things like the ability to take video. Who knows. I actually use that on my PowerShot every once in a while. But no way I'd trade the viewfinder in on my 300D. If anything, I'd like manual focusing aids. ;)

Drizzt
Feb 18, 2006, 09:58 PM
I agree with everyone else who would be less than thrilled with shooting through an LCD. But the real viewfinder still works on the Olympus, right? I guess this might add some things like the ability to take video. Who knows. I actually use that on my PowerShot every once in a while. But no way I'd trade the viewfinder in on my 300D. If anything, I'd like manual focusing aids. ;)

Yes, as I posted above, you can zoom in 10x using the LCD when you want help focusing manually and the optical viewfinder works just as with any other dSLR. Plus, unlike any other dSLR, the Olympus has the SuperSonic Wave Filter which cleans the CCD everytime you turn it on and change a lens.

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2006, 10:05 PM
Yes, as I posted above, you can zoom in 10x using the LCD when you want help focusing manually and the optical viewfinder works just as with any other dSLR. Plus, unlike any other dSLR, the Olympus has the SuperSonic Wave Filter which cleans the CCD everytime you turn it on and change a lens.

Yeah, interesting. I guess it's sad that Olympus get's poo-poo'd by Canon and Nikon's names. Hardly anyone at FM seems to shoot on Olympus gear, although it seems like pretty good stuff.

bousozoku
Feb 18, 2006, 10:10 PM
I agree with everyone else who would be less than thrilled with shooting through an LCD. But the real viewfinder still works on the Olympus, right? I guess this might add some things like the ability to take video. Who knows. I actually use that on my PowerShot every once in a while. But no way I'd trade the viewfinder in on my 300D. If anything, I'd like manual focusing aids. ;)

Of course, the optical viewfinder still works. They would not consider selling an SLR without one. After seeing certain expensive point-and-shoot cameras with electronic viewfinders, I would certainly choose anything but those. However, I have absolutely no luck with point-and-shoot cameras anyway, so it's not a bother.

I've seen quite a few cameras bridging the gap lately. I can't see too much convergence happening, but seeing some quick scene modes makes me think that it could be really convenient when you just don't feel like messing with everything.

snap58
Feb 18, 2006, 10:44 PM
Yeah, interesting. I guess it's sad that Olympus get's poo-poo'd by Canon and Nikon's names. Hardly anyone at FM seems to shoot on Olympus gear, although it seems like pretty good stuff.

I really don't like the 4/3 ratio they use (as the PS cameras do) in lieu of the 3/2 that all the other DSLR's use. Film shooters moving to digital will want 3/2, and with computer monitors going to wide screen, this seems like a dumb move?

mkrishnan
Feb 18, 2006, 10:55 PM
I really don't like the 4/3 ratio they use (as the PS cameras do) in lieu of the 3/2 that all the other DSLR's use. Film shooters moving to digital will want 3/2, and with computer monitors going to wide screen, this seems like a dumb move?

Are you talking about sensor crop or picture aspect ratio? Do you mean that Olympus camera's don't take standard pictures with the same aspect ratio as 35mm?

Clix Pix
Feb 18, 2006, 11:02 PM
I believe this will be quite useful for macro photography, especially when you can digitally zoom in 10x before taking the picture. No optical viewfinder can beat that for manual focus assist. Plus, even if you don't want to use the LiveView, you can always use the conventional OVF. Plus with the odd form factor, you can add a flash onto the hotshoe and still use the built-in flash as a fill.

You don't have to listen to me, I'm just an OLY fanboy :D


Yes, that would work quite nicely, actually, now that you mention it: doing macro photography with the camera on a tripod and being able to view the image much more clearly (and comfortably!) with the LCD rather than trying to contort yourself into a position so that you can see through the viewfinder.

Yeah, interesting. I guess it's sad that Olympus get's poo-poo'd by Canon and Nikon's names. Hardly anyone at FM seems to shoot on Olympus gear, although it seems like pretty good stuff.

I've still got a 35mm film Oly DLX IS-3 "bridge" camera which I loved dearly. It definitely gave me some good images and I used it many times rather than pulling out my Nikon N90 and lenses if I wanted an all-in-one "walkaround" camera. I always was very satisfied with that camera and the images it produced, but when someone looks into investing in a camera system with lots of lenses and such, the Olympus falls short of either Canon or Nikon in that regard.

That Oly DLX IS-3 was a sort of forerunner of today's digital "bridge" cameras (or as they're sometimes called, "fixed-lens prosumer" cameras such as the Nikon Coolpix 8700, 8800 and 8400. The problem that I have found, though, is that while some of these lenses may have great zoom range (CP 8700 and 8800 come to mind here) they are also very slow lenses and on top of that, the cameras themselves are very slow when it comes to uploading the image to the memory card. It was my frustration with the CP 8800 which finally nudged me into going with a DSLR.

bousozoku
Feb 18, 2006, 11:32 PM
Are you talking about sensor crop or picture aspect ratio? Do you mean that Olympus camera's don't take standard pictures with the same aspect ratio as 35mm?

There are 3 things going on here. The aspect ratio is 4:3, like conventional t.v. sets instead of the more widescreen 3:2, which is approximately what 35mm (36x24mm negatives) film uses.

The four-thirds (4/3) system uses a 4/3" sensor. The E-1, E-300, and E-500 all use CCDs, but the E-330 is using a CMOS sensor.

The crop factor (as many people call it) is 2.0, which makes it easy to figure the 35mm effective focal length.

I've still got a 35mm film Oly DLX IS-3 "bridge" camera which I loved dearly. It definitely gave me some good images and I used it many times rather than pulling out my Nikon N90 and lenses if I wanted an all-in-one "walkaround" camera. I always was very satisfied with that camera and the images it produced, but when someone looks into investing in a camera system with lots of lenses and such, the Olympus falls short of either Canon or Nikon in that regard.

That Oly DLX IS-3 was a sort of forerunner of today's digital "bridge" cameras (or as they're sometimes called, "fixed-lens prosumer" cameras such as the Nikon Coolpix 8700, 8800 and 8400. The problem that I have found, though, is that while some of these lenses may have great zoom range (CP 8700 and 8800 come to mind here) they are also very slow lenses and on top of that, the cameras themselves are very slow when it comes to uploading the image to the memory card. It was my frustration with the CP 8800 which finally nudged me into going with a DSLR.

The IS series is very comfortable to me. I have an IS-20 DLX and I also had a digital version, the C-2500L, which was interesting.

How many lenses do you feel are necessary? I have 3 lenses covering my whole range, though I would like to go a bit wider with a fish eye. Unless I sprout a couple more arms, I'm going to find it difficult to use much more. ;)

Clix Pix
Feb 19, 2006, 12:39 AM
The IS series is very comfortable to me. I have an IS-20 DLX and I also had a digital version, the C-2500L, which was interesting.

How many lenses do you feel are necessary? I have 3 lenses covering my whole range, though I would like to go a bit wider with a fish eye. Unless I sprout a couple more arms, I'm going to find it difficult to use much more. ;)

It's not always "how many lenses" that is the critical issue, it's more what those lenses will do for the user. In some cases there may be overlap in range, for instance, but certain lenses are purchased and used for special purposes even though they may be within the same range as another lens. Macro lenses would be a good example of this. Another example would be if someone wants a basic "walkaround" lens such as the new Nikon 18-200 VR, which is a really great little lens, but not super fast. The user then may choose to purchase additional lenses which are within that 18-200 range but which are prime or zoom lenses and in many instances much faster. The value of a fast lens is in situations where there is low light.
Or someone might want a macro lens which again falls within that same range....

Taking myself for instance, I've got the aforementioned 18-200 VR lens. I love it -- this is really a superlative lens. However, when I want to do some shooting in the 100-200 range when the light's not so good, I've got two choices: one, kick up the ISO and two, choose a faster lens. I pull out my 70-200 f/2.8 lens and away I go..... Then there's macro. The other day I decided to play around with the new Lowel Ego lighting setup that I recently purchased. It's for tabletop photography. Just for the heck of it I shot one or two images with the 18-200 VR, as it happened to be on the camera at the time, but then I quickly switched off to the lens that I use for macro, the 105 mm. (I've posted my latest desktop, one of those images, in the Community > Pictures thread) If I have the urge to shoot photos of my kitty under natural lighting I am more than likely going to reach for the 50 mm f/1.4 lens. In a few weeks I'll be going to an outdoor event which will be held from late afternoon into the evening. I'll be starting out using the 18-200 VR but as it begins to get darker, I'll be switching to a faster lens.

The point here is that Nikon and Canon both have a lot of flexibility available in their lenses and this is what many photographers appreciate and need. I suspect that while Olympus has some good lenses that perhaps they just don't have quite the wide range and breadth of lens choices that are available through the other two manufacturers.

bousozoku
Feb 19, 2006, 01:40 AM
...
The point here is that Nikon and Canon both have a lot of flexibility available in their lenses and this is what many photographers appreciate and need. I suspect that while Olympus has some good lenses that perhaps they just don't have quite the wide range and breadth of lens choices that are available through the other two manufacturers.

I know that there is a lot more Nikon and Canon glass...some great, some not so great and to that you can add Tamron and Sigma, and (:D) Quantaray.

In all my years with 35mm cameras, I've had one Vivitar lens and a Sigma lens and don't miss having inexpensive glass.

Of course, the Olympus options are mostly moderately expensive, which is part of the reason I only have 3 and they're flexible enough to meet 95 % of my needs. I'd love to have an f1.4 lens but there isn't such a thing--f2.0 is as big as it gets. Spot metering has gotten better over the years, though, it's not as necessary as it once was. :)

ChrisA
Feb 19, 2006, 02:13 AM
...I've been wondering if people would actually view the LCD in order to get a photo.

...Do any of you think that this will become popular with SLRs?

Yes for technical photography. For most general photography like sports and family snapshots you want to look through the viefinder. But if the camera is connected to a telescope or a microscope or you are shooting some static stdio product shot then I would think the ability to judge the image on a computer monitor wuld be a huge advantage. People who shoot large format say they can get a veiw of the finished shot on the ground class screen and of cource what is betterthen focussing with a loupe that you can move around to look at different parts of the image?

Canon sells a modified version of the 20D called a "20Da" that is specialized to astrophotography. It alows live readout of the sensor and a special moe where only a small central portion of the sensor is read out but very fast. This can be viewed on the LCD screen and has the effect of a zoom to full size (pixel to pixel) the data can also be viewed on a computer screen if the camera back LCD is to small.
They have also removed the IR cutoff filter so the 20Da is much more senitive to IR light.

People here are saying they don't want a live image but what if it filled you 30 inch ACD screen and you could zoom and pan? Just the think for shootng the night sky or microscope slides

bousozoku
Feb 19, 2006, 02:37 AM
Yeah, interesting. I guess it's sad that Olympus get's poo-poo'd by Canon and Nikon's names. Hardly anyone at FM seems to shoot on Olympus gear, although it seems like pretty good stuff.

Way back before Canon had a decent camera it was almost all Nikon until Olympus brought out the OM-1 and then, faster, lighter, smaller cameras became more popular. Canon used to get the poo-poo treatment, even after the AE-1 was available because nothing was available for it.

I really don't like the 4/3 ratio they use (as the PS cameras do) in lieu of the 3/2 that all the other DSLR's use. Film shooters moving to digital will want 3/2, and with computer monitors going to wide screen, this seems like a dumb move?

I find that the extra height works better for me with zoom lenses. I don't do landscapes, though. The times I shoot something to get a feel for the distance, I do it head on with a low depth of field.

Applespider
Feb 19, 2006, 05:59 AM
I've seen plenty of consumers holding their point and shoot cameras a bit away from their faces in order to get a shot.

Those would be the same people who then complain that their shots seem blurry. It always astonishes me when I see people trying to take photos (in some tough situations) with one hand and the camera at arm's length.

For less experienced photographers, the screen can be a boon in trying to compose a picture; particularly when viewfinders on small P&S can be so small that you can barely see things effectively.

I find them useful when otherwise, I'd end up at an odd angle to try to get my eye to the viewfinder

revenuee
Feb 19, 2006, 06:59 AM
this seems like a very expensive work around to have live feed on an SLR.

Uses for this camera?

Reportage
I can see it being useful shooting in a media scrum at an event <-- i remember it took me some time to learn how to shoot my SLR blindly and still being able to get a usable shot.

Sports
i don't think sports photographers are going to be jumping on this camera considering it's 3 fps. Usable, but hardly desirable. I've always liked having 5 fps, and now having a chance to work with 8 fps the 3 fps is far to slow. I recommend shooting with 3 fps when you are starting because it helps develop reflex, eye, and you learn more about the game. If you're a freelancer working for Press agency, however, those 8 frames will give you a lot more useable photos per opportunity.

Underwater
This camera will have a huge following in this market i think. It will take the guess work out of what you are shooting considering using a viewfinder is nearly impossible underwater.

Tabletop
This will be handy for low ball product shots. The 7.5 megapixels is nice and useable for newspaper and low stock ad use, but for magazine shots 12 - 15 is now becoming the minimum, at least here in the Toronto ad agencies.

Macro
This will be a nice addition to a macro photographers kit, take a little stress off the back and knees when getting low ... at least in theory. On the other hand i like framing with a viewfinder.

The LCD live feed will be nice for those moments where framing using the viewfinder is to difficult or impossible. But i don't see this being useful ALL the time.

Try hand holding you're SLR's with a 70-200 mm f2.8 at arms length, and see how long that's comfortable.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 19, 2006, 09:10 AM
Well said revenuee.

The other aspect of the E-330's introduction is that many consumers buying a DSLR after using a digital P&S are looking to that live view. Everyday at work I have a customer that will hold the DSLR away from them looking for that live view.

The question will be, are consumers going to pay the price for this new feature?

revenuee
Feb 19, 2006, 09:22 AM
Everyday at work I have a customer that will hold the DSLR away from them looking for that live view.



Thank you -- Chip NoVaMaac

haha i see you share my fate ... LOL ... i work one shift a week at a camera store /lab (for the discounts on equipment and photofinishing)

i get that from consumers all the time ..."how do i get the LCD to work" ... LOL

the blank stares i get when explaining what SLR actually means is priceless

kwajo.com
Feb 19, 2006, 10:07 AM
I don't think I would ever use the LCD to frame my shots, especially considering I manual focus almost all my photos, you just can't beat a nice, bright pentaprism (not pentamirror) to focus and frame your photo. not to mention all the issues suggested above about camera shake from holding it away from your face.

the E-330 looks intriguing, but I don't like how the Live-view system makes the viewfinder a bit more dull than it should be because of how it 'syphons' light off to the sensor. I can see it being a big hit with some, but if I was going to switch to Olympus I'd wait for the replacement to the E-1

bousozoku
Feb 19, 2006, 11:21 AM
Well said revenuee.

The other aspect of the E-330's introduction is that many consumers buying a DSLR after using a digital P&S are looking to that live view. Everyday at work I have a customer that will hold the DSLR away from them looking for that live view.

The question will be, are consumers going to pay the price for this new feature?

Well, that's the thing. The body is potentially more expensive than anything else from Olympus at the moment at $1000 vs. $599 for an E-500 and $799 for an E-1. Then again, if you're going to pay $1200 for an underwater enclosure, what's the big deal?

I don't think I would ever use the LCD to frame my shots, especially considering I manual focus almost all my photos, you just can't beat a nice, bright pentaprism (not pentamirror) to focus and frame your photo. not to mention all the issues suggested above about camera shake from holding it away from your face.

the E-330 looks intriguing, but I don't like how the Live-view system makes the viewfinder a bit more dull than it should be because of how it 'syphons' light off to the sensor. I can see it being a big hit with some, but if I was going to switch to Olympus I'd wait for the replacement to the E-1

I don't know that I would use it either unless I had something at floor level that I was trying to capture.

I'm still waiting for the E-1N or whatever it'll be called. Hopefully, it will arrive this summer.

Clix Pix
Feb 19, 2006, 11:52 AM
Everyday at work I have a customer that will hold the DSLR away from them looking for that live view.

Hee, hee..... I have to admit that after years of shooting with Coolpixes as my only introduction to digital cameras, the day that I decided that it was time for a D70, while I had done some reading online I had not actually seen or handled a D70 or any other DSLR. Off I went to the store, the sales associate handed me the camera, I hefted it for a moment and commented on its weight and then turned it on. It immediately felt good, though, like an old friend, as it reminded me of my N90 35mm film camera. I reflexively looked at the LCD. Huh? It wasn't on? I looked for the button to switch from viewfinder to LCD, which is what my Coolpix had, a feature which I used often, since I preferred using the viewfinder in many situations. The sales associate cleared his throat gently and said, "on a DSLR the only time the LCD is on is AFTER you've made the shot." Uh.... Oh. I took a quick shot and sure enough, lo and behold the LCD screen showed what I had just shot. Thus was my introduction to DSLR cameras.... :)

I have known of people who have balked at buying or using a DSLR because they were so accustomed to the live preview in a prosumer digicam; one woman finally did succumb eventually, and now she can't imagine why she ever thought using a viewfinder would be a hassle.

As to whether consumers will jump to embrace the new Oly DSLR with the live preview, that remains to be seen. It could be that some first-time DSLR buyers coming off a prosumer digicam will, and of course they'd also have to invest in a couple lenses. The other target audience would be those who already have Oly lenses from another body or those who have specific purposes for which this would be ideally suited, such as we've discussed in other posts in this thread.

It will be interesting to see how this new camera fares....

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 19, 2006, 12:02 PM
Well, that's the thing. The body is potentially more expensive than anything else from Olympus at the moment at $1000 vs. $599 for an E-500 and $799 for an E-1. Then again, if you're going to pay $1200 for an underwater enclosure, what's the big deal?

That is my concern about the concept. If the consumer does not buy this new camera, I think the concept will die.

I wish for two things out of the E-330; a price difference of $100 over a non-live view camera, and video recording capabilities.

As to whether consumers will jump to embrace the new Oly DSLR with the live preview, that remains to be seen. It could be that some first-time DSLR buyers coming off a prosumer digicam will, and of course they'd also have to invest in a couple lenses. The other target audience would be those who already have Oly lenses from another body or those who have specific purposes for which this would be ideally suited, such as we've discussed in other posts in this thread.

It will be interesting to see how this new camera fares....

Right you are.

Evidently live-view is somewhat in demand. In Europe there is a device that attaches to a DLSR eyepiece allowing for live-view. In fact there are two models. The newest allows for time release for compatible DSLRS.

Don't remember the name, but one of UK members may chime in.

JDar
Feb 22, 2006, 06:53 AM
I'm one who appreciates the moveable, twistable lcd viewing screens on the Nikon 990 and 8800 so much that I can't seem to move on.

There is great utility for me to be able to hold the camera overhead, waist level, or arms' length out, or otherwise stabilize it on a rock or half hidden behind a tree and still see the composition and data. I want Nikon to produce a better unit than the 995, the S4, and not as humongous as the 8800. However, this line seems to be EOL.

Composing through a viewfinder now seems restricting and old fashioned compared to using the lcd screen. I don't need a professional level camera with interchangeable lenses and all that goes with it. Been there, done that. Just build me a high quality unit that fits into a CamelBak pack like the old 990--I still love it and know better than to chase megapixels in trying to improve quality and specific utility for me.

Clix Pix
Feb 22, 2006, 11:00 AM
I'm one who appreciates the moveable, twistable lcd viewing screens on the Nikon 990 and 8800 so much that I can't seem to move on.

There is great utility for me to be able to hold the camera overhead, waist level, or arms' length out, or otherwise stabilize it on a rock or half hidden behind a tree and still see the composition and data. I want Nikon to produce a better unit than the 995, the S4, and not as humongous as the 8800. However, this line seems to be EOL.

I loved my CP 990 and CP995. Totally adored them. Then I moved on to the 8700 which had a form factor more similar to an SLR, and that raised my expectations that it would perform like an SLR. Well, that camera had a few flaws, one being that there was no filter thread on the lens, and it was very slow. Along came the 8800, which I snapped up eagerly, again anticipating that THIS would be "the one," that it would be a lightweight all-in-one substitute for a DSLR. Wrong. I soon became very disenchanted with the 8800. Only a few months later did I give up on it and head for a DSLR.

The differences between the 8800 and the D70 were day and night. FINALLY, a fast, responsive camera! More responsive in terms of lenses and definitely more responsive in terms of uploading to the memory card and buffering. A tradeoff which I was more than willing to make. That lens on the 8800 is a beauty, though, and for doing macro or shots where subject movement is not an issue and where speed isn't a priority, it truly excels. There are those who think that the lens developed for the 8800 was a sort of "test lens" in anticipation of the separate 18-200mm VR which Nikon now has available for users of DSLRs. But, yes, getting back on-point here, that swivel LCD screen is a really neat feature to have on any camera as it really does make getting those difficult shots a lot easier. And, yes, in some ways it is easier to compose by looking at the LCD screen as a "frame" around your prospective image. I do miss having that on my DSLRs.

JDar
Feb 22, 2006, 03:41 PM
Clix Pix, I really appreciate your thoughts on the 8800. I've used a friend's 8800 extensively and unlike every other Nikon product I've used, the 8800 doesn't fit in my hand well or satisfactorily or however it should to feel "right." Loved the camera otherwise, though, especially the capability (but not the appearance) of that lens. The remote triggering function was sort of weird, too, I recall. Still, it's a lot of capability for the money.

Clix Pix
Feb 22, 2006, 04:44 PM
Clix Pix, I really appreciate your thoughts on the 8800. I've used a friend's 8800 extensively and unlike every other Nikon product I've used, the 8800 doesn't fit in my hand well or satisfactorily or however it should to feel "right." Loved the camera otherwise, though, especially the capability (but not the appearance) of that lens. The remote triggering function was sort of weird, too, I recall. Still, it's a lot of capability for the money.


Yes, the 8800 really had such promise when it first came out: lots of zoom range, lots of megapixels, great macro capabilities (for which Nikon Coolpixes have always been prized) and of course it was lighter weight than any of the DSLRs available at that time. I really wanted to love that camera, but time after time I'd take it out to shoot and later, when reviewing the images in the computer, would be disappointed. Also I became frustrated when trying to shoot and totally missing out on potential images because the darned thing was still trying to upload to the memory card. Even when fiddling with it by tweaking settings there were problems. Trying to use it in manual focus was a joke, with a very cumbersome approach through the menu system instead of simply being able to flick a switch. When I got my D70 I was enthralled at how much easier I could control certain basic functions, manual focus being one of them. Sure, most of the time I rely on autofocus but there are times when you do need to set the camera/lens on manual focus.

I've still got my 8800 but I haven't used it since I got my D70 and later the D200 and probably won't. I probably should try to sell it....

G4scott
Feb 22, 2006, 05:09 PM
I think live view in DSLRs was bound to happen sometime, and like all first generation technologies, it's going to have it's downsides. On the bright side, it opens the door for a new type of SLR, and if demand is high enough, other companies will probably soon follow suit.

The problem remains, though, that a DSLR is still best viewed through the viewfinder for more accurate composition and focusing abilities.

I'll be interested to see if Canon or Nikon come out with their own live view DSLRs.

bousozoku
Feb 26, 2006, 07:21 PM
Number 2 has been announced by Panasonic: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022609panasonicdmcl1.asp

It's a lot different, though, with Leica lenses that include aperture rings.

Chip NoVaMac
Mar 1, 2006, 11:57 PM
Number 2 has been announced by Panasonic: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022609panasonicdmcl1.asp

It's a lot different, though, with Leica lenses that include aperture rings.


Just caught up on the news from PMA, this sounds pretty exciting....

bousozoku
Mar 2, 2006, 01:41 AM
Just caught up on the news from PMA, this sounds pretty exciting....

Especially since it's a Leica-Panasonic-Olympus design. I had my doubts at first but it seems so much more now that I've read the details.

pamcremer
Jun 6, 2006, 02:27 PM
That is my concern about the concept. If the consumer does not buy this new camera, I think the concept will die.

I wish for two things out of the E-330; a price difference of $100 over a non-live view camera, and video recording capabilities.



Right you are.

Evidently live-view is somewhat in demand. In Europe there is a device that attaches to a DLSR eyepiece allowing for live-view. In fact there are two models. The newest allows for time release for compatible DSLRS.

Don't remember the name, but one of UK members may chime in.

check out this website:
http://www.adi-digital.com/Zigview/page1/Zigview_page1.htm

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 7, 2006, 11:51 PM
No.

The SLR camera is designed to be used as a viewfinder camera. The resolution (ultimately infinite) is much higher than any LCD can display, especially if it's limited to the size of the camera's back. Also, adding this function (so i hear) impedes normal operation with the reflex mirror.

I will always use the viewfinder of an SLR, even if the option of a live view LCD was there.

That is your own personal POV. There are many customers that I see each day that want the live view from their P&S's in their new DSLR purchase.

IMO, Olympus could have won with the E-330 if they had a pivoting LCD screen; as well as being able to do video clips.

bousozoku
Jun 8, 2006, 12:01 AM
check out this website:
http://www.adi-digital.com/Zigview/page1/Zigview_page1.htm

That's nice but generic add-ons tend to be too generic and generally, do not work well. It's a solution looking for a market, I would say.

I'm betting the Olympus/Leica/Panasonic option has already made quite a few underwater friends.

rt_brained
Jun 8, 2006, 08:34 AM
Getting back to the original question—I don't use my DSLR's LCD for anything else but reviewing shots, however I wouldn't mind having a live feed to my laptop to help assist my clients see what's being framed. I do like the fact that I can feed shots from my 20D to my Powerbook as they're shot. It takes a few seconds, but it's helpful for clients to see everything on a larger screen.

To take the live feed step even farther...Just like transferring a comp to clear acetate and on top of the ground glass of a 4x5 or 8x10, I'd love to have the ability of live feed to a Photoshop window someday, utilizing the comp on a layer above it as an overlay to help compose the shot.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 8, 2006, 09:11 AM
there are times when using the lcd could be handy. not likely for the most professional/artistic photos... but sometimes you need to reach up over someone or put the camera away from your body to get a shot of something and it could be helpful. i say it can't hurt to have an option to use it, though of course the optical viewfinder would be preferable in 99.999% of the cases.

Getting back to the original question—I don't use my DSLR's LCD for anything else but reviewing shots, however I wouldn't mind having a live feed to my laptop to help assist my clients see what's being framed. I do like the fact that I can feed shots from my 20D to my Powerbook as they're shot. It takes a few seconds, but it's helpful for clients to see everything on a larger screen.

To take the live feed step even farther...Just like transferring a comp to clear acetate and on top of the ground glass of a 4x5 or 8x10, I'd love to have the ability of live feed to a Photoshop window someday, utilizing the comp on a layer above it as an overlay to help compose the shot.

that last part sounds awesome!

how do you feed shots to your computer as it is now? just have the camera hooked up while you shoot? or something more fancy?

Mr. G4
Jun 8, 2006, 12:08 PM
Since I saw information about the Olympus E-330, (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse330evolt.asp) I've been wondering if people would actually view the LCD in order to get a photo.

I've seen plenty of consumers holding their point and shoot cameras a bit away from their faces in order to get a shot. I've tried it a bit with my mobile phone to get the feel of it.

Do any of you think that this will become popular with SLRs?

With the E-330 you can disable the live previeuw.

I used to have the Nikon Coolpix 950 with the swivel len, it's very useful in some situation.

Here is the teaser that Olympus put out before the announcement of the e-330
http://www.4-3system.com/imgdata/frontpage/CHRIS_E-330_Teaser.jpg

As you can see ... in some situation the live preview is very handy to have.

jared_kipe
Jun 8, 2006, 12:24 PM
No.

The SLR camera is designed to be used as a viewfinder camera. The resolution (ultimately infinite) is much higher than any LCD can display, especially if it's limited to the size of the camera's back. Also, adding this function (so i hear) impedes normal operation with the reflex mirror.

I will always use the viewfinder of an SLR, even if the option of a live view LCD was there.
Resolution is NOT infinite. Absolute resolution is limited by wavelength, you can't resolve something smaller than the wavelength of light you're using.

But in reality, resolution is dependent on the design of the lens. But people with good eyesight will see better through a viewfinder than a rear LCD.

Silentwave
Jun 8, 2006, 05:18 PM
Resolution is NOT infinite. Absolute resolution is limited by wavelength, you can't resolve something smaller than the wavelength of light you're using.

But in reality, resolution is dependent on the design of the lens. But people with good eyesight will see better through a viewfinder than a rear LCD.


Quite. I use the plain VF on my cameras and love it- with my current prescription I have 20/15 vision. If I wanted I could even get a 2x or higher magnifier for macro.

ChrisA
Jun 9, 2006, 12:45 AM
Having used camera with ground glass focusing screens, I find there is an advantage over a view finder. Not for action photos bt for anything that does not move looking at the small image helps make the composition. You can see what the photo will look like when printed and then maybe move the tripod slightly and recompose. You waste a lot less film with a ground glass screen. Now with an LCD you would see what the camera sees ncluding if there is any detail in the highlights or shadows.

ANy time you are hand holding the camera I'd want to use the reflex view finder but once you put the camera on tripod I would prefer the LCD or the ground glass. So for bildings, plants and landscapes the LCD might be best.

You I know you can't check critial focus in an LCD but the camera will have either autofocus or a litle green light that come on to tell you the manual focus setting is right.

Abstract
Jun 9, 2006, 06:54 AM
Especially since it's a Leica-Panasonic-Olympus design. I had my doubts at first but it seems so much more now that I've read the details.

Do Olympus lenses fit this Panasonic? Sorry, I skimmed through the DP Review.....um......review, and didn't read anything about this. I'm guessing Olympus built the camera and such, Panasonic supplied the MOS transistor/sensor, while Leica supplied the lenses, so I was just curious if there was more to this relationship than just Olympus helping with the camera design, and Panasonic making the sensors.

Anyway, the actual camera is beautiful, but it looks a bit thin and it may have a hand-grip that's too small, like the Rebel/350D. Oh, and it may feel a bit lopsided in terms of weight distribution. Either way, it's beautiful. Really. I can't wait to see it in person. :)

Abstract
Jun 9, 2006, 06:59 AM
But in reality, resolution is dependent on the design of the lens.

You've made good points, but realistically, the sensors nowadays aren't dense enough for the lens to matter unless you're getting into the 16MP Canons. The lenses intrinsic resolution is still better than my sensor can pick up, as with pretty much all DSLRs on the market.

Mr. G4
Jun 9, 2006, 09:39 AM
Do Olympus lenses fit this Panasonic? Sorry, I skimmed through the DP Review.....um......review, and didn't read anything about this. I'm guessing Olympus built the camera and such, Panasonic supplied the MOS transistor/sensor, while Leica supplied the lenses, so I was just curious if there was more to this relationship than just Olympus helping with the camera design, and Panasonic making the sensors.

Anyway, the actual camera is beautiful, but it looks a bit thin and it may have a hand-grip that's too small, like the Rebel/350D. Oh, and it may feel a bit lopsided in terms of weight distribution. Either way, it's beautiful. Really. I can't wait to see it in person. :)


Theorically, Yes. Since 4/3rd is a standard you can take any 4/3 lens and stick to nay 4/3 camer it should work. However, in order to use all the whistle of the Leica lens (which is designed for the Panasonic) you have to use the Panasonic body. I think the autofocus will work for any 4/3 body....not sure about the stabilizer.

Abstract
Jun 9, 2006, 10:46 AM
So the mounts aren't different? That's basically what I want to know, because it would make Panasonic very competitive if their mounts were the same. Olympus may sell more glass, but may lose camera sales to Panasonic.

bousozoku
Jun 9, 2006, 11:53 AM
So the mounts aren't different? That's basically what I want to know, because it would make Panasonic very competitive if their mounts were the same. Olympus may sell more glass, but may lose camera sales to Panasonic.

The lenses are intelligent. They have their own CPU and firmware and the mounts are exactly the same. The Leica lens has an aperture ring on it and that's the main difference. All of the Olympus lenses have zoom and focus rings but no aperture ring. The Sigma lenses also have a auto/manual focus switch, which shouldn't work since that's controlled by the body but they would likely have an aperture ring also.

patrick0brien
Jun 9, 2006, 01:57 PM
It'll be interesting to see how the manufacturers can combine LCD live preview with true SLR function because the two are diametrically apposed in the function of the camera.

In a consumer camera with LCD preview, the CCD is energized all the time and the picture is taken as a light sample from the CCD - ergo that little delay one gets. The SLR works by energizing the CCD but actually has the traditional shutter operating over it - ergo all of the great flexibility and instant response. Unfortunately, in a dSLR, between shots the viewfinder mirror is intercepting the light and specifically detouring it into the viewfinder until the shutter is depressed - that, and the closed shutter precludes using the main CCD for preview LCD input.

I think the only way to add preview without sacrificing all the dSLR creamy godness is to add a second, lower res CCD to the Viewfinder Prism - perhaps a second reflex? (second CCD in the way of viewfinder for LCD preview/Out of the way for traditional viewfinding)

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 9, 2006, 10:15 PM
I think the only way to add preview without sacrificing all the dSLR creamy godness is to add a second, lower res CCD to the Viewfinder Prism - perhaps a second reflex? (second CCD in the way of viewfinder for LCD preview/Out of the way for traditional viewfinding)

Actually this is the way the Olympus E-330 works. It has two sensors. A 7mp for the actual picture taking; and an 8mp for the live view.

I can hear the questions as to why an 8mp sensor for the live view. The answer given by Olympus is that the 8mp live view sensor the the same that is used in the Stylus 800 P&S digicam. For got the name they use for the "low light" capabilities of that sensor; but it gives the user a better frame of reference in composing the shot in lower light.

The shame of this design IMO on the E-330 and perhaps its coming clones - is that the SLR viewfinder brightness really suffers compared to what is out there today, with the likes of the D50 and the XT. Had a chance to check out a DRebel (the original), and was surprised at how dim the viewfinder was. IMO the E-330 is a bit darker than that. :eek:

At the price level of the E-330, I wish they had allowed the 8mp sensor to be used for video capture. It would make my customers feel happier with the added cost of a live view on a DSLR.

ChrisA
Jun 9, 2006, 10:56 PM
Actually this is the way the Olympus E-330 works. It has two sensors. A 7mp for the actual picture taking; and an 8mp for the live view.


I have to disagree. Quoted from the Olympus web site

"The newly-developed 7.5 megapixel MOS imager enables "live" viewing"

THe way I hear it was that the mirror is only patially silvered so some oof the light goes through. The read out the main(and only) sensor at a very high rate. I know from my work with astronomical CCD camera that you can combine adjacent pixels to mmake a much more sensitve sensor at the expense of resolution. Seeing as the LCD display is only roughtly 1/4 megapixel there is much room for "binning" (combining pixels.) Or they could simply not read out 7/8ths of the pixels and get a very fast readout for their live display.

Either way you need to take light away from thre viewfinder to make a live display. But not much, maybe 1/4 stop or so

Whicj Nikon body was it that had the semi-silvered mirror that did not move durring exposure. It did some veryhigh number of frames per second and That was with film - semi silvered mirrors have been around for a while

Chip NoVaMac
Jun 10, 2006, 12:08 AM
I have to disagree. Quoted from the Olympus web site

"The newly-developed 7.5 megapixel MOS imager enables "live" viewing"

THe way I hear it was that the mirror is only patially silvered so some oof the light goes through. The read out the main(and only) sensor at a very high rate. I know from my work with astronomical CCD camera that you can combine adjacent pixels to mmake a much more sensitve sensor at the expense of resolution. Seeing as the LCD display is only roughtly 1/4 megapixel there is much room for "binning" (combining pixels.) Or they could simply not read out 7/8ths of the pixels and get a very fast readout for their live display.

Either way you need to take light away from thre viewfinder to make a live display. But not much, maybe 1/4 stop or so

Whicj Nikon body was it that had the semi-silvered mirror that did not move durring exposure. It did some veryhigh number of frames per second and That was with film - semi silvered mirrors have been around for a while

in the end, one of us is being sold a build of goods. :)

i can only repeat from the training that I got on the E-330. And that is that there are two sensors. One for the actual picture, and the other for the live view.

There may have been a Nikon body that did not move during exposure, but that concept was a Canon innovation IIRC. The name used was "Penical" (sp) IIRC.

bousozoku
Jun 10, 2006, 12:21 AM
in the end, one of us is being sold a build of goods. :)

i can only repeat from the training that I got on the E-330. And that is that there are two sensors. One for the actual picture, and the other for the live view.
...

Mode A uses two sensors. one of which sits near the viewfinder itself. Mode B is a direct route which doesn't use the second sensor.