Poll on the use of Live View on DSLR

Started Oct 11, 2010 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,676
I understand what you're saying...

John_A_G wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

...than to need it and not have it. Or even "want" it and not have it. Same as with IS, and, as you noted, same with video.

The problem with that line of thinking is it assumes the consumer doesn't give up anything to get it. Liveview development takes R&D $$$ - so, by manufacturers investing those dollars in liveview it is time, resources and money NOT spent in other areas. So, it's a matter of lost opportunity - could the photographer have a tool that was more beneficial if R&D $$ was instead spent in other areas?

Let's say camera manufacturers are like any other company - they have multiple ideas for R&D projects - one project would benefit dynamic range in the next generation and another project works on improving focus ability during liveview. In reality, like most companies, there is not enough time, money and resources to do both projects.

...and can't disagree if that's how it pans out. I don't pretend to know how the R&D process words, but if you have some engineers in your employ with different specialties, it may be that different innovations are taken on by different teams, and having one team aid another doesn't help things any, and could even cause problems.

The argument could certainly be made that photographers "gave up" better dynamic range in order to get something they don't use. Now, this is an oversimplification but it's a fact in any corporation involving technology - where do you put the limitied money? Many times it's guesswork on what the ROI will be for those investments.

Yeah, I'm thinking not. Like I said, I don't know, but it's hard for me to believe it was live-view or more DR.

Similarly, I liked Oly's decision that 12mp was enough - instead of putting their resources into figuring out how to cram 18mp into the sensors of their cameras they decided money could better be spent in other areas. After all, it's better to have 18mp and not need them then need them and not have them, right?

Again, I don't know the difficulties involved in making smaller pixels. But I do know that, for a given technology, smaller pixels keep the same DR, as both the read noise and FWC scale with pixel area for a given tech. As to whether improvements in getting less read noise / area or a higher FXC / area could be done if they weren't trying to make smaller pixels, I can't comment.

But, Bob could. And I'm pretty sure he's stalking me, and will jump in with some concrete details.

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