Prev: incredible photos of Iceland's volcano
Next: interesting stuff at NYTimes
From: DanP on 23 Apr 2010 07:35
On 23 Apr, 09:18, ColinD <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Why is it that, almost without exception, P&S aficionados resort to
> name-calling when disagreeing with a poster?  Is it a case of small
> sensor, small mind?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You have just been eaten by our resident P&S troll.


DanP
From: DanP on 23 Apr 2010 07:41
On 23 Apr, 01:11, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> That point has been reached. In the very dimmest conditions I have to
> use the LCD of my DSLR because I can see more than I can through the
> optical viewfinder or with the naked eye. This was demonstrated very
> clearly recently when I tried to take available light shots in a dark
> tunnel. At ISO 200 and f8 the shutter speed required was more than 30
> minutes.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>

But I bet you have taken a shot, loked at it on the LCD and decided
what to do next.
I do not know of any camera with Live View that can give a better view
that the optical viewfinder.

The point is optical viewfinder beats LIve View at the moment.

If I am wrong please tell me the make of your camera.


DanP
From: DanP on 23 Apr 2010 07:44
On 23 Apr, 01:00, Remmy Martin <remmymar...(a)gooddrinksnotspam.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:24 +0100, Pete
>
>
>
>
>
> <available.on.requ...(a)aserver.invalid> wrote:
> >On 2010-04-22 18:48:08 +0100, C J Campbell said:
>
> >> On 2010-04-22 01:00:32 -0700, "Ray Shafranski" <m...(a)privacy.net> said:
>
> >>> <>
> >>> The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film days
> >>> and should be replaced on all DSLR designs.
>
> >> Not so much a relic of film but of the need for clear, bright, optical
> >> viewfinders. You are not going to get as good a picture holding the
> >> camera out in front of you (as you must do with the Olympus E-PL1, for
> >> example) as you will with the camera braced by your face. Mirrorless is
> >> great for the photography masses who really don't care about picture
> >> quality, but it has a ways to go before it is usable by pros. So, I
> >> would say the lifting mirror and pentaprism will disappear on consumer
> >> DSLRs soon, but it is going to be on pro cameras for awhile yet.
>
> >Yes, and until sensors plus software can exceed the night-adaptive
> >vision of the human eye, framing of very low light shots will remain a
> >difficulty without an optical finder.
>
> Except for the FACT than an EVF image can be electronically ramped up in
> gain far higher than anything you'll ever see in any optical viewfinder.
> All of my EVF equipped cameras are able to frame and focus in light
> conditions so low that you can't even see any image at all in an optical
> viewfinder, making any DSLR totally worthless in those lighting conditions.
>
> I do wish that you blind-worshipping DSLR idiots would catch up with
> reality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Familiar bullshit from a familiar troll.


DanP
From: Pete on 23 Apr 2010 08:11
On 2010-04-23 01:00:15 +0100, Remmy Martin said:

> <>
> Except for the FACT than an EVF image can be electronically ramped up in
> gain far higher than anything you'll ever see in any optical viewfinder.
> All of my EVF equipped cameras are able to frame and focus in light
> conditions so low that you can't even see any image at all in an optical
> viewfinder, making any DSLR totally worthless in those lighting conditions.
>
> I do wish that you blind-worshipping DSLR idiots would catch up with
> reality.

Each time I have asked which equipment is being used so that I can try
it myself, I get no answer. Many of my pictures are taken with a
non-SLR camera because it is more convenient for me, I would like to
replace it and catch up with reality. What camera(s) do you recommend I
look at?

--
Pete

From: David J Taylor on 23 Apr 2010 08:19
"DanP" <dan.petre(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e4094e8-54e4-4a26-8bbb-ffc530231b38(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Apr, 01:11, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> That point has been reached. In the very dimmest conditions I have to
>> use the LCD of my DSLR because I can see more than I can through the
>> optical viewfinder or with the naked eye. This was demonstrated very
>> clearly recently when I tried to take available light shots in a dark
>> tunnel. At ISO 200 and f8 the shutter speed required was more than 30
>> minutes.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> But I bet you have taken a shot, loked at it on the LCD and decided
> what to do next.
> I do not know of any camera with Live View that can give a better view
> that the optical viewfinder.
>
> The point is optical viewfinder beats LIve View at the moment.
>
> If I am wrong please tell me the make of your camera.
>
>
> DanP

Dan, I recall recently that under very low light conditions, the LCD on
my Nikon D5000 gave a more usable image than the optical finder, but that
was primarily because of its swivel capability. A brief test I just made
showed that it was not more sensitive than the optical viewfinder, at
least once my eyes had become dark adapted.

Cheers,
David

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: incredible photos of Iceland's volcano
Next: interesting stuff at NYTimes