Lets Face It, DSLRs, Appear Somewhat Heading In The Way Of The Dinosaurs

[BRJR]

Well, I have this lens, among others; it's quite good/fast f1.4, and is neither large, heavy, or expensive.

http://www.voigtlander.com/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7bhcwc.html

(and, for a bit more money, I also have this one --- still, very small size & light-weight, though not as fast.):

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2194.html

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

There are two aspects in DSLRs, not contained in the SLR abbreviation.

SLR = Optical Viewfinder through the lense -> which might be obsolete in the future - but we are talking decade(s), not 1-2 years here, where digital viewfinders or framing through the back screen will be "that" better.

The other two characteristics that make the DSLRs a "hit", are interchangeable lenses and image sensor size.

Why having a variety of lenses available for your camera body is easy to understand, while the advantages of an all-in-one compact P&S is also understandable.

What gives a clear edge to the SLR is the size:

bigger sensor -> bigger capturing area -> higher resolution and detail capture -> obvious performance gains even with "18-55 3.5-4.5s"...

Better handling with more intuitive ergonomics for advanced photography (the opposite of P&S) and P&S alike.

Better Lenses -> as larger size is more forgiving to material restrictions begin with.

Size leads to higher weight and costs too...but that's not going to change anytime soon. Also note that "good" P&S or "prosumer" cameras are always bigger and clunkier than pocket sized P&Ss.

Yes, compacts now have better sensors, but so do SLRs...and that will continue and always SLR-sized cameras will be better than compacts which in-turn be better than cellphone cameras.

But just as medium and large formats are still here -> tho vastly changed, DSLRs or "close to 35mm sensor sized interchangeable cameras" will continue to exist, no matter how better the P&S will be, and how negligible their performance advantages will be for the average user.

 

[tko]

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

Here's what Kennie really used

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/4x5.htm

What he does is say that for YOU that a point and shoot is good enough, then uses the profits from his web site to buy himself nice cameras like a M9. He also shots a lot of film because "it's easier."

Here's Kenny rationalizing why he doesn't shoot digital.

"I didn't have to haul around a big DSLR, bigger lenses, a computer, backup drives, card readers, cables, power supplies, blank DVDs and CDs, camera chargers, power strips, and all the other crap that takes up a separate bag. I just grabbed my camera and went, and each night, I went to sleep. With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted. Film is more reliable; it won't erase itself or become unreadable while you're out shooting, and this way I could devote all my attention to the trip and photography, not to computers."

Take a look at Kenny's photos. Would you be happy with them? Would they win any contest? I wouldn't be happy if they were my photos, so I won't take any of his advice seriously.

http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2008-11/index.htm

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Here's Kenny rationalizing why he doesn't shoot digital.

"I didn't have to haul around a big DSLR, bigger lenses, a computer, backup drives, card readers, cables, power supplies, blank DVDs and CDs, camera chargers, power strips, and all the other crap that takes up a separate bag. I just grabbed my camera and went, and each night, I went to sleep. With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted. Film is more reliable; it won't erase itself or become unreadable while you're out shooting, and this way I could devote all my attention to the trip and photography, not to computers."

Interestly enough . . .

With digital shooting I've never had to carry a computer, backup drives, card readers, cables, power supplies, blank DVDs and CDs, camera chargers, power strips, and all the other crap that takes up a separate bag.

All I carry is plenty of memory cards and extra batteries . . . in one camera bag!

Guess KR really doesn't know what he is talking about . . .

--
J. D.
Colorado



I do understand its a Jeep thing . . . thats why I bought a Dodge!

 

[T3]

Here's Kenny rationalizing why he doesn't shoot digital.

"I didn't have to haul around a big DSLR, bigger lenses, a computer, backup drives, card readers, cables, power supplies, blank DVDs and CDs, camera chargers, power strips, and all the other crap that takes up a separate bag. I just grabbed my camera and went, and each night, I went to sleep. With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted. Film is more reliable; it won't erase itself or become unreadable while you're out shooting, and this way I could devote all my attention to the trip and photography, not to computers."

What a complete load of bull. Back in the film days, I used to have to carry Ziplock baggies full of film...different types of film, different speeds of film. I needed bags for fresh, unused film, and bags for spent, used film. And all these rolls of film took up a lot more room than a few memory cards. In fact, all this film did take up a separate bag. Plus, these days when I travel, I take along a small 10" netbook with a 160GB internal harddrive to store my images. And even if I weren't doing any photography, I'd still be bringing the netbook simply to watch movies, or check email, or surf the internet, so it's not even an extra item that I'm bringing! I can have a set of images on my netbook, and I can keep a set of images on my memory cards, so I have some redundancy. What kind of redundancy do I have when traveling with film? None.

I really love his statement "With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted." Well, if you have no back-ups or copies, that basically means that if anything happens to your originals, they're gone! I don't see how that's a good thing. You don't have to back-up or copy your digital images, and that's not a good thing either! As far as posting your images, know one says you have to post any images, even if you're shooting digital. But it's a heck of a lot easier to post images with digital than it is with film.

 

[mhc_99]

One of the arguments pro EVF that I read quite often is that information could be displayed in the viewfinder instead of just on the LCD. Things like grids, and live histograms. Well, as I said before, that may be beneficial to some but when I look through a viewfinder, I want as clear and clean a view as possible with no distractions, no lag, and no artificial boost to the light levels, period.

And as far as the argument that you get to see the effects of tweaking before you actually take the shot--well, IMO what you see on an LCD or EVF is only a rough approximation of the image and of limited value.

I agree, when EVFs are equal to the best film camera OVFs then fine, but resolution and performance in bright sunlight is still pretty poor, let alone the aforementioned lag. UGH!

Marion

I don't get this either. If I prefer using MF should I desire the death of any other format?? If someone prefers EVF then fine, get a camera that has one and there are plenty from which to choose, but this salivating for the end of the OVF really puzzles me.

When challenged, they will go on and on about all the reasons the EVF is "superior" but those reasons mey be beneficial to THEM, however they have no relevance to me at all.

So, how would the death of the OVF benefit EVF fans??

Marion

4. I love OVFs, I hate EVFs. I'll never understand why there are those who just can't wait till OVFs are not available anymore (not that I believe that, just that they hope that).

I have to say that the first time I heard an EVF proponent go on and on about how "superior" EVFs are I'd never imagined that could be an opinion someone could hold. I thought the EVF was just a cheap azz way to simulate an OVF, a way for the camera manufacturers to save money. When I heard the prevalent reason EVF proponents think the way they do (that they could see beforehand what tweaking their settings would have on the final picture) I thought "can you really tell, looking at such a crappy representation of the final picture?"

If EVS had no lag whatsoever (like an OVF), in fact, looked JUST LIKE an OVF, I might change my opinion of them, but even the best ones today, to my eye, suck. I use the EVF on my FZ50 'cause it beats the heck out of watching its 2" LCD, but I use the LCD on my FZ18 'cause it beats the heck out of its lame EVF. When I look through my Nikons' OVF it's like a breath of fresh air. If I hear someone opinionate one more time about the demise of the OVF I'm gonna hurl.

 

[graybalanced]

What a complete load of bull. Back in the film days, I used to have to carry Ziplock baggies full of film...different types of film, different speeds of film. I needed bags...

True. And I used to travel with a lead-lined bag for my film so that they would have a better chance of surviving the X-ray machine. Oh, the anxiety during longer trips and transfers when I knew that the film would undergo passes through multiple X-ray machines. X-rays have no effect on digital.

I really love his statement "With film, you're done, and never have anything that needs to be backed up, copied or posted."

That's so typical of Rockwell, trying to argue that the impossibility of making any kind of backup is actually a feature.

One of the arguments pro EVF that I read quite often is that information could be displayed in the viewfinder instead of just on the LCD. Things like grids, and live histograms. Well, as I said before, that may be beneficial to some but when I look through a viewfinder, I want as clear and clean a view as possible with no distractions, no lag, and no artificial boost to the light levels, period.

So you don't like those distractions? There is this concept available of "turning them off." I use grids to align verticals and horizons, but that doesn't mean I always want to see them. So I hit a button and they turn off! What a concept!

and no artificial boost to the light levels

I just got a Canon 7D and it turns this concept on its head. Instead of an artificial boost, the live view mode has an option that attempts to simulate the final exposure. If you're under, it will show you. If you're right on, it will show you. I'm not saying this feature is perfect, but it's the direction EVF is headed: Not your overcompensated human vision, but what the camera is objectively about to record...and the latter is often more important than "reality."

I agree, when EVFs are equal to the best film camera OVFs then fine, but resolution and performance in bright sunlight is still pretty poor, let alone the aforementioned lag. UGH!

Well, knowing any history of digital technology at all, you know that it's only a matter of time before these objections are overcome. And not a lot of time, probably. All my objections to digital were swept away within a couple of years, and after that, it became clear that digital had many advantages film never had. The same will happen with viewfinders. Within a few years, any trivial remaining advantages to optical will be far outweighed with whatever new advantages electronic brings...just as it has been for everything else in the past. Viewfinders will not escape this pattern.

I agree that optical is better...but only for now.

 

[FPL53]

the 2 ton Buicks of the 50's ??

I used to think larger, heavier cameras had an advantage in that you could shoot steadier pictures with them due to mass dampening. I've since concluded this isn't true, the mass inducing more body tremors than a smaller camera and heavy mirror mechanisms result in 2x or so the blur that a non-mirrored camera produces, especially with longer, heavier lenses.

 

[mhc_99]

One of the arguments pro EVF that I read quite often is that information could be displayed in the viewfinder instead of just on the LCD. Things like grids, and live histograms. Well, as I said before, that may be beneficial to some but when I look through a viewfinder, I want as clear and clean a view as possible with no distractions, no lag, and no artificial boost to the light levels, period.

So you don't like those distractions? There is this concept available of "turning them off." I use grids to align verticals and horizons, but that doesn't mean I always want to see them. So I hit a button and they turn off! What a concept!

Uhhh, right you are, but this is one of the pro EVF arguments which for me is of no benefit at all.

and no artificial boost to the light levels

I just got a Canon 7D and it turns this concept on its head. Instead of an artificial boost, the live view mode has an option that attempts to simulate the final exposure. If you're under, it will show you. If you're right on, it will show you. I'm not saying this feature is perfect, but it's the direction EVF is headed: Not your overcompensated human vision, but what the camera is objectively about to record...and the latter is often more important than "reality."

The light meter also tells me when I'm about to over or underexpose and by how many stops.

I agree, when EVFs are equal to the best film camera OVFs then fine, but resolution and performance in bright sunlight is still pretty poor, let alone the aforementioned lag. UGH!

Well, knowing any history of digital technology at all, you know that it's only a matter of time before these objections are overcome. And not a lot of time, probably. All my objections to digital were swept away within a couple of years, and after that, it became clear that digital had many advantages film never had. The same will happen with viewfinders. Within a few years, any trivial remaining advantages to optical will be far outweighed with whatever new advantages electronic brings...just as it has been for everything else in the past. Viewfinders will not escape this pattern.

I agree that optical is better...but only for now.

I've never objected to digital and have worked with digital images for over 20 years and have had digital cameras for almost ten so I'm no luddite. When the day comes that I can't tell the difference between an EVF and a good film camera OVF, I will be happy to use an EVF. DSLR OVFs aren't as good as SLR OVFs so I would expect that the technology can make improvements. Even then, I'm sure there will be people who prefer OVF but I would never want to deny them that option.

Marion

 

[rocdoc]

That is fantastic! When they all become cheaper than P&S, I'll finally get a D700 (heck, since they are all dying I'll probably be able to afford a D3s...), and continue to use this terrible product, dSLR. I'm old fashioned that way.

--
my thread: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ondionais/

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

One of the arguments pro EVF that I read quite often is that information could be displayed in the viewfinder instead of just on the LCD. Things like grids, and live histograms. Well, as I said before, that may be beneficial to some but when I look through a viewfinder, I want as clear and clean a view as possible with no distractions, no lag, and no artificial boost to the light levels, period.

And as far as the argument that you get to see the effects of tweaking before you actually take the shot--well, IMO what you see on an LCD or EVF is only a rough approximation of the image and of limited value.

I agree, when EVFs are equal to the best film camera OVFs then fine, but resolution and performance in bright sunlight is still pretty poor, let alone the aforementioned lag. UGH!

It is very apparent by your supposed 'arguement' against EVF's that you have not used an EVF . . . especially the one on the Panasonic G1/GH1.

And I don't mean 'looked through one' . . . I mean actually used an EVF!

Otherwise, you'd know that an EVF does have it's own distinct advantages over an OVF, despite any sharpness defishencies.

Is the EVF on my Panasonic FZ50 as sharp as an OVF in a DSLR? . . . NO!
(but how important is that sharpness difference . . . really . . . ?)

Is the EVF in my FZ50 more useful overall than an OVF in a DSLR? . . . YES!

The EVF IS viewable in bright sunlight . . .

The EVF DOES show me exactly what my exposure will look like
(unless using flash, of course) . . .

The EVF WILL MAGNIFY what I see in the viewfinder to help manual focusing . . .

I could go on all night with the benefits of an EVF over an OVF . . .

But the simple fact of the matter is this . . .

The ONLY TWO advantages that the OVF has over the EVF is that it has a sharper image . . . and slightly less blackout between shots!

Thats it . . . and thats all . . . and those really aren't that big of an advantage!

I can't wait to see what EVF's look like 5-10 years from now.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[bosjohn]

What a complete load of bull. Back in the film days, I used to have to carry Ziplock baggies full of film...different types of film, different speeds of film. I needed bags for fresh, unused film, and bags for spent, used film. And all these rolls of film took up a lot more room than a few memory cards. In fact, all this film did take up a separate bag. Plus, these days when I travel, I take along a small 10" netbook with a 160GB internal harddrive to store my images. And even if I weren't doing any photography, I'd still be bringing the netbook simply to watch movies, or check email, or surf the internet, so it's not even an extra item that I'm bringing! I can have a set of images on my netbook, and I can keep a set of images on my memory cards, so I have some redundancy. What kind of redundancy do I have when traveling with film? None.

Not being a pro photographer I find I carry around about the same amount of stuff possible more with digital.

When I was flying with Film I carried it in clear plastic bags and while again I am not a pro nor do I travel nearly as much by air as many in the business I never suffered any losses do to xray.

So the between the hardware I need for the digital that is not also needed for film would be the lap top, battery charger, card reader and a few plugs and cables. For film it was of course the film but I usually would take no more than a brick because film was easily available in the places I traveled. So for me its a bit of a wash.

Just for the record I like if I can afford it two bodies and three or four at the most lenses for the Leicas and two bodies and a couple wide faster primes and a decent longer zoom for the film Oms.

So everyones experience with this could be different. Over time I think the digital will be easier now that i up load files to something like the I pod touch or whatever and not have to carry the lap top which now is the heaviest single item I carry.
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

 

[amalric]

I have been fighting the no-mirror faction which was quite vocal and apocalyptic on the 4/3 Olympus dsLR Forum until they were relegated to their own forum, the µ4/3 one.

It is simply not nice to open a Forum main page, and see people predict the demise of your hard won equipment, and the end for you as a dinosaur.

It strikes me it must be a generational fad, akin to an oedipus complex, so blindly it works.

Anyhow to make things short I decided to get myself a 620 dSLR instead of the coming E-P1 and couldn't be more happy. It is a true hybrid in the that it has an OVF and lightning fast focus for action.

But it also has Liveview and CDAF on a flip out screen which I enjoy for architecture and landscape shot at low angles, or even for a bit of stelathy street shooting.

So I have the best of both on a small camera and with small lenses.

If I want to go smaller I'll probably get a µ4/3 with a prime but in no way it will replace my small dSLR.

People less demanding might well please themselves with no mirror, but those coming from P&S never had to deal with fast action, fleeting moments or BIF in the first place. Someof their luddism comes from the fear and laziness of having to tame a complicated machine they don't understand.

Then come the militants and intellectuals, ex dSLR owners who abandoned ship, who fear that the same company won't provide them the lenses because it still has dSLRs to care for.

Those are the most ferocious and they have somehow succeeded. For the next two years there will be only one new lens in 4/3, while there are a dozen more in µ4/3. Luckily the 4/3 lenses lineup is more than enough for me at the moment (except the need a few primes) so I can pass on it easily.

However small non telecentric lenses are giving their bitter fruits: none is optically worth a dSLR one, and despite that they are quite expensive for the bits of plastic with CA and heavy distortion bits they are.

So at the moment nothing to boast about for the disappearance of the mirror: just a handful of good sensors, and lenses, with soft edges, and inferior ergonomics.

As super P&S or second cameras EVIL do quite well, but no way they are going to replace dSLR. Which of course doesn't mean that at some point we might see some mirrorless upper tier cameras for special sensors and applications. But they won't be small, they will be telecentric and probably live next to mirror cameras.

I think a photographer, differently from a gear user, still understands the advantages of a natural view, at the speed of light.

An if he/she really needs to chimp, they will use the LCD or even Liveview when fit.

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

I have been fighting the no-mirror faction which was quite vocal and apocalyptic on the 4/3 Olympus dsLR Forum until they were relegated to their own forum, the µ4/3 one.

It is simply not nice to open a Forum main page, and see people predict the demise of your hard won equipment, and the end for you as a dinosaur.

It strikes me it must be a generational fad, akin to an oedipus complex, so blindly it works.

Anyhow to make things short I decided to get myself a 620 dSLR instead of the coming E-P1 and couldn't be more happy. It is a true hybrid in the that it has an OVF and lightning fast focus for action.

But it also has Liveview and CDAF on a flip out screen which I enjoy for architecture and landscape shot at low angles, or even for a bit of stelathy street shooting.

So I have the best of both on a small camera and with small lenses.

If I want to go smaller I'll probably get a µ4/3 with a prime but in no way it will replace my small dSLR.

People less demanding might well please themselves with no mirror, but those coming from P&S never had to deal with fast action, fleeting moments or BIF in the first place. Someof their luddism comes from the fear and laziness of having to tame a complicated machine they don't understand.

Then come the militants and intellectuals, ex dSLR owners who abandoned ship, who fear that the same company won't provide them the lenses because it still has dSLRs to care for.

Those are the most ferocious and they have somehow succeeded. For the next two years there will be only one new lens in 4/3, while there are a dozen more in µ4/3. Luckily the 4/3 lenses lineup is more than enough for me at the moment (except the need a few primes) so I can pass on it easily.

However small non telecentric lenses are giving their bitter fruits: none is optically worth a dSLR one, and despite that they are quite expensive for the bits of plastic with CA and heavy distortion bits they are.

So at the moment nothing to boast about for the disappearance of the mirror: just a handful of good sensors, and lenses, with soft edges, and inferior ergonomics.

As super P&S or second cameras EVIL do quite well, but no way they are going to replace dSLR. Which of course doesn't mean that at some point we might see some mirrorless upper tier cameras for special sensors and applications. But they won't be small, they will be telecentric and probably live next to mirror cameras.

I think a photographer, differently from a gear user, still understands the advantages of a natural view, at the speed of light.

An if he/she really needs to chimp, they will use the LCD or even Liveview when fit.

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Care to define 'Luddism' for us . . . ?

And . . . thanks for the Sunday morning sermon!

Made for a great laugh.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[amalric]

Care to define 'Luddism' for us . . . ?

According to the Oxford dictionary:

Luddism |-ˌizəm| noun
Ludditism |-ˌītˌizəm| noun
ORIGIN perhaps named after Ned Lud,

a participant in the destruction of machinery

And . . . thanks for the Sunday morning sermon!

Don't mention it.

Made for a great laugh.

Happy that you learnt a new word

Now another one, 'Troll':

troll 1 |trōl|
noun

a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

ORIGIN from Old Norse and Swedish troll, Danish trold; adopted into English from Scandinavian in the mid 19th cent.

Amazing how precise these electronic dictionaries can be. You should read them more often to improve your argumentative powers

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Care to define 'Luddism' for us . . . ?

According to the Oxford dictionary:

Luddism |-ˌizəm| noun
Ludditism |-ˌītˌizəm| noun
ORIGIN perhaps named after Ned Lud,

a participant in the destruction of machinery

And . . . thanks for the Sunday morning sermon!

Don't mention it.

Made for a great laugh.

Happy that you learnt a new word

Now another one, 'Troll':

troll 1 |trōl|
noun

a mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

ORIGIN from Old Norse and Swedish troll, Danish trold; adopted into English from Scandinavian in the mid 19th cent.

Amazing how precise these electronic dictionaries can be. You should read them more often to improve your argumentative powers

And just who is the troll here?

I think it is you . . .

And I don't want some dictionary definition of 'Luddism' . . .

But your own definition, since you seem to be tossing that word around quite freely here.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[bosjohn]

Is the EVF on my Panasonic FZ50 as sharp as an OVF in a DSLR? . . . NO!
(but how important is that sharpness difference . . . really . . . ?)

Is the EVF in my FZ50 more useful overall than an OVF in a DSLR? . . . YES!

The EVF IS viewable in bright sunlight . . .

The EVF DOES show me exactly what my exposure will look like
(unless using flash, of course) . . .

The EVF WILL MAGNIFY what I see in the viewfinder to help manual focusing . . .

The sharpness difference would be important in the ability to see facial expressions and other nuances of the photo not visible in evfs at least the currant crop of these.
ovfs are also quite visible in bright sunlight.

The option to magnify the evf for manual focusing aid is a plus but takes yet another step between vision and exposure and is not needed on the better ovfs.

I am not sure what you mean by the "exactly what the exposure looks like" in that is will look about the same as the lcd on the back in my experience that is. Is this what you mean if so I agree.
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

 

[bosjohn]

I

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Am.

Your entire post puts me in the difficult position of being ashamed to admit that I too prefer ovfs over evs.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

 

[mhc_99]

Did you even read what I wrote before you responded or is this just one of your many knee-jerk defensive posts about the superiority of EVF?

EVF has many benefits to you , and the sharper image that OVF provides is not significant to you , but somehow you can't accept that others don't feel the same way.

A sharp, clear viewfinder is the most important thing to me because i use manual focus a lot--EVF just doesn't cut it for me . Maybe your eyesight is failing so the viewfinder sharpness isn't significant for you anymore?

You see all sorts of benefits to the EVF so go ahead and use them, I'm not trying to deny you. But why do you feel that everyone should march lock-step along with your views?? Sounds rather narrow-minded to me.

Marion

One of the arguments pro EVF that I read quite often is that information could be displayed in the viewfinder instead of just on the LCD. Things like grids, and live histograms. Well, as I said before, that may be beneficial to some but when I look through a viewfinder, I want as clear and clean a view as possible with no distractions, no lag, and no artificial boost to the light levels, period.

And as far as the argument that you get to see the effects of tweaking before you actually take the shot--well, IMO what you see on an LCD or EVF is only a rough approximation of the image and of limited value.

I agree, when EVFs are equal to the best film camera OVFs then fine, but resolution and performance in bright sunlight is still pretty poor, let alone the aforementioned lag. UGH!

It is very apparent by your supposed 'arguement' against EVF's that you have not used an EVF . . . especially the one on the Panasonic G1/GH1.

And I don't mean 'looked through one' . . . I mean actually used an EVF!

Otherwise, you'd know that an EVF does have it's own distinct advantages over an OVF, despite any sharpness defishencies.

Is the EVF on my Panasonic FZ50 as sharp as an OVF in a DSLR? . . . NO!
(but how important is that sharpness difference . . . really . . . ?)

Is the EVF in my FZ50 more useful overall than an OVF in a DSLR? . . . YES!

The EVF IS viewable in bright sunlight . . .

The EVF DOES show me exactly what my exposure will look like
(unless using flash, of course) . . .

The EVF WILL MAGNIFY what I see in the viewfinder to help manual focusing . . .

I could go on all night with the benefits of an EVF over an OVF . . .

But the simple fact of the matter is this . . .

The ONLY TWO advantages that the OVF has over the EVF is that it has a sharper image . . . and slightly less blackout between shots!

Thats it . . . and thats all . . . and those really aren't that big of an advantage!

I can't wait to see what EVF's look like 5-10 years from now.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Did you even read what I wrote before you responded or is this just one of your many knee-jerk defensive posts about the superiority of EVF?

EVF has many benefits to you , and the sharper image that OVF provides is not significant to you , but somehow you can't accept that others don't feel the same way.

A sharp, clear viewfinder is the most important thing to me because i use manual focus a lot--EVF just doesn't cut it for me . Maybe your eyesight is failing so the viewfinder sharpness isn't significant for you anymore?

You see all sorts of benefits to the EVF so go ahead and use them, I'm not trying to deny you. But why do you feel that everyone should march lock-step along with your views?? Sounds rather narrow-minded to me.

Wow . . . looks to me like you are the king of the knee-jerk defensive posts!

It seems it is you who can't understand that others can do without something that you "need"!

By the way . . . yes, I did read and understood everything you wrote.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[bosjohn]

I

Sorry, little puritans, but the end of the World is not near, at least in the photographic world.

Am.

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

Sorry I got the post in the wrong place so it looks like what amilric said its not.

My post was in response to his post ending in the above quote. It reads " Your entire post puts me in the difficult position of being ashamed to admit that I too prefer ovfs over evs." I hope I got it right this time. again my apologies.
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]