No Sony SLRs any more, ever.

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
Piginho
Regular MemberPosts: 305
Like?
Re: No Sony SLRs any more, ever.
In reply to Draek, Sep 14, 2012

Draek wrote:

As someone who actually does portraiture (plus the odd landscape or two), I can tell you getting accurate colors and exposure is far, far more important than "critically accurate focus". Which many people have shown cannot be gotten without live view and magnification anyways, as even photographers with decades of experience have failed to match, let alone surpass, AF systems when using OVFs of 35mm-and-below SLRs.

And yes, checking for color accuracy in the field is still important even if you shoot RAW, as making light changes is easy enough, but correcting for a photo under fluorescent lights taken with a Tungsten setting takes significantly more work, of the pants-numbingly boring kind. The fact that EVFs allow us to get it right in seconds, with no shoot-> chimp-> correct-> shoot cycle in between, is simply a Godsend.

Ohh, and if you really think you can discern 36 Mpx's worth of detail with your naked eye in the tiny view of a 35mm OVF, you're completely and utterly nuts.

Really, the OVF has many benefits, but you've pointed out none of them and in fact, given your description of your requirements and style of shooting, you'd be among those who'd find Live View the most useful. Give it a try, make a few 16x20" test prints, and you should find it a most enlightening experience

Below is a quote from a link that I provided earlier.

"Visual Acuity and Resolving Detail on Prints

How many pixels are needed to match the resolution of the human eye? Each pixel must appear no larger than 0.3 arc-minute. Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of 74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.

The 10600 pixels over 20 inches corresponds to 530 pixels per inch, which would indeed appear very sharp. Note in a recent printer test I showed a 600 ppi print had more detail than a 300 ppi print on an HP1220C printer (1200x2400 print dots). I've conducted some blind tests where a viewer had to sort 4 photos (150, 300, 600 and 600 ppi prints). The two 600 ppi were printed at 1200x1200 and 1200x2400 dpi. So far all have gotten the correct order of highest to lowest ppi (includes people up to age 50). See: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi "

Resolving 36Mp of detail with the naked eye in a viewfinder (not so tiny in A900) is a FOV issue and not a size issue. If, as in the article above, people can reliably tell the difference between prints made at differing resolution in blind testing (an unfortunate turn of phrase, given the context) when looking at 20 inch prints from a 20 inch distance, then I'm certain, that despite your protests, you would be able to see the difference between a 2.4Mp and a 36Mp EVF.

As for me trying live view. The camera that I traded in for my A900 was an A550, which by any stretch has a decent live view facility, but an appalling OVF. Despite this, I never found myself using either the live view, or the special manual focus checking live view facility. It's just not how I like to work.

As for making 20 X16 prints. I bought a Canon i9100 A3+ printer about 10 years ago and have made countless A3+ (19 X 13) prints, before the print head finally packed in, so I'm not sure what your point is. I do need a replacement A3+, or larger, printer though.

When digital started to take hold in it's earlier days, when 4-5Mp was as good as it got, a lot of people were telling themselves that this was good enough, indeed, such images regularly graced the sports pages of our newspapers, but if I were to say now that no one can tell the difference between 5mp and say 25Mp, so let's go back to 5Mp cameras, you'd all laugh.

Likewise, when Sony incrementally increase EVF resolution, you will never want to go back to 2.4Mp viewfinders. You might not think that you could tell the difference, but when you get it you'll notice it.

I'm just saying that EVF is not for me, not just yet, in any case and nothing that anyone on here says will convince me, in the same way as when we only had a max of 5Mp cameras and everyone was asking me why I wouldn't give up film for digital. Why, because, at the time digital wasn't good enough for me, in the same way as EVF isn't good enough for me.

So, stop trying to convince me and let's agree to differ. Many on here quite clearly feel as I do, possibly for different reasons, but a much larger group of you are happy with EVF. This is all good, as long as we all enjoy photography, whether amateur or pro, let's keep on doing what we enjoy, in a way that pleases us. This isn't a debate that has to have a winner.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow