From: ColinD on
Ray Shafranski wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1fd97cd6-3a04-4e15-ad54-670b393393aa(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable lens
>> camera?
>> Nikon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored camera and/or an ,
>> high megapixel FF camera that doesn't cost $8000?
>> Olympus. Will they dump DSLRs?
>> Pentax. Will they release a FF camera, will they survive?
>> Sony. Will they release a non-boring entry level camera?
>> Fuji. Will they release a new pro DSLR or any interchangeable lens
>> camera?
>> Sigma. Does anyone care?
>> Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales?
>
> The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film days
> and should be replaced on all DSLR designs.
>
>
Wrong. That design of camera was invented in the film days, but it is
not a relic by any means.
If you do not have an optical viewfinder, then you have to have an
electronic viewfinder. Where does such a finder get its image from?
Yes, that's right, from the sensor. Sensors used for viewing and then
taking the shot are compromised by the changeover from view to capture
modes taking many milliseconds to do so, adding to shutter lag times.

The sensors must be constantly open to light, including direct sunlight
if the camera is swinging around. This was a problem with rangefinder
cameras with cloth focal-plane shutters like the Leica rangefinder
models. An f/1.4 lens took only seconds to burn a hole in the shutter
fabric if you had the sun in shot. I can imagine the results on your 15
or 20 megapixel sensor with focused sunlight playing over it.

Point&shoot cameras have this problem, and is why they all come with
built-in shutters over the lens. As long as the camera is switched on,
there is light on the sensor, probably fading the bayer matrix dyes as well.

Mirrors in dslr's are very sophisticated devices. They allow for an
accurate fraction of light to pass through for focusing and metering,
and they aren't spring-driven any more. The better ones at least are
motor driven up and down, fast with soft landing, and counterbalanced to
minimise vibration. To say they are 'relics' is pure biased ignorance.

Colin D.
From: Remmy Martin on
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:18:24 +0100, Pete
<available.on.request(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" <me(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.

From: Chris Malcolm on
In rec.photo.digital Pete <available.on.request(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" <me(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.

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
From: Rich on
On Apr 22, 7:41 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:39:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:

> Kodak and Pentax are talking right now.  Watch this space.

I don't know where that will go. Kodak makes medium format CCDs that
make FF CMOS look like what they are, well noise-controlled but
ultimately crude consumer devices. However, going back to Kodak CCDs
for small sensors will be a problem since noise is the be-all, end-all
of sensor performance these days.
From: Ray Fischer on
Joel Connor <myemail(a)myserver.com> wrote:
>On 22 Apr 2010 16:37:39 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Ray Shafranski <me(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1fd97cd6-3a04-4e15-ad54-670b393393aa(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Canon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored, interchangeable lens
>>>> camera?
>>>> Nikon. Will they release a compact non-mirrored camera and/or an ,
>>>> high megapixel FF camera that doesn't cost $8000?
>>>> Olympus. Will they dump DSLRs?
>>>> Pentax. Will they release a FF camera, will they survive?
>>>> Sony. Will they release a non-boring entry level camera?
>>>> Fuji. Will they release a new pro DSLR or any interchangeable lens
>>>> camera?
>>>> Sigma. Does anyone care?
>>>> Samsung. Will they make a dent in 4/3rds sales?
>>>
>>>The lifting mirror and the pentaprism/pentamirror are relics of film days
>>>and should be replaced on all DSLR designs.
>>
>>Gee, you're so smart. I wonder why millions of people don't listen to
>>you and simply abandon SLRs.
>
>That must be sarcasm because millions do.

Oooo! Now we get the fantasies!

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net