Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Thanks, Jeff.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are you happy to take pictures just using a rear screen?
- Thread starter BG454
- Start date
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
jon404
Senior Member
Joseph -- I think what us ex-Speed Graphic guys want is just a simple pull-up wire frame viewfinder! Less is more -- for fast moving subjects, if I can see roughly what my picture will be, and hear the camera go Beep when it locks focus, I'm happy...
Shocked to see that the pro Nikon weighs about the same as a Speed Graphic. Back when, by contrast, my Graphic was a LOT heavier than my little Canon QL17 rangefinder, another camera I really loved. Anyway, glad I'm retired, and not a pro photographer -- lugging a pro Nikon around would be a real pain.
Always hated using TLRs, like the Rolleiflex. Never practiced enough with one to be comfortable with it.
Now -- to Glen's point about the Graphic for sports -- yes, the film speeds were a lot slower. But that camera's spring-wound rear shutter went to 1/1000 of a second, remember? Sports shots have always been 'posed' in the sense that the photographer positions ahead of time -- knows the game -- and can anticipate possible upcoming dramatic action. Look at this iconic photo of Joe DiMaggio... and, Glen, sports were almost all daytime back then, which really helped!
--
Jonathon Donahue
Shocked to see that the pro Nikon weighs about the same as a Speed Graphic. Back when, by contrast, my Graphic was a LOT heavier than my little Canon QL17 rangefinder, another camera I really loved. Anyway, glad I'm retired, and not a pro photographer -- lugging a pro Nikon around would be a real pain.
Always hated using TLRs, like the Rolleiflex. Never practiced enough with one to be comfortable with it.
Now -- to Glen's point about the Graphic for sports -- yes, the film speeds were a lot slower. But that camera's spring-wound rear shutter went to 1/1000 of a second, remember? Sports shots have always been 'posed' in the sense that the photographer positions ahead of time -- knows the game -- and can anticipate possible upcoming dramatic action. Look at this iconic photo of Joe DiMaggio... and, Glen, sports were almost all daytime back then, which really helped!
--
Jonathon Donahue
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's the same old mantra if you don't subscribe to no VF or some crappy EVF you're a Luddite stuck in the past, dinosaur etc etc.
Posts such as the one above are a slap in the face to those who try to enforce their preferences on other users.
The results of the AP poll are quite predictable..most folks hate using the rear LCD, it is this way because camera makers are trying to save money..and are guilty of ignoring their users.
Even today we have "rejected old tech" such as power focus and power zoom making a comeback. Guess what they both suck egss bigs time compared to mechanical zoom/focus. But hey it's all about pandering to so called "new markets" (video users) at the expense of sound common sense.
I've used power zoom and focus in the 35mm SLR's in the 90's and hated it, but if folks in 2012 are ok with it then fine enjoy yourself.
Joseph needs to learn that his needs are not the same as others simple lesson..hundreds of posts later still not learnt ;-)
Posts such as the one above are a slap in the face to those who try to enforce their preferences on other users.
The results of the AP poll are quite predictable..most folks hate using the rear LCD, it is this way because camera makers are trying to save money..and are guilty of ignoring their users.
Even today we have "rejected old tech" such as power focus and power zoom making a comeback. Guess what they both suck egss bigs time compared to mechanical zoom/focus. But hey it's all about pandering to so called "new markets" (video users) at the expense of sound common sense.
I've used power zoom and focus in the 35mm SLR's in the 90's and hated it, but if folks in 2012 are ok with it then fine enjoy yourself.
Joseph needs to learn that his needs are not the same as others simple lesson..hundreds of posts later still not learnt ;-)
D
Darrell Spreen
Guest
I remember that my first 35mm camera purchase was all about the OVF (and a decent lens). It was a bright frame finder with automatic parallax compensation. For me, a good VF is key to a good camera. Even now, I use a hood loupe with the hi-res LCD on my P&S camera so I can compose shots with care. The guess-and-shoot technique in bright sunlight has proven to be useless to me.
I thought this was an excellent summation.
--
Darrell
Skipper494
Forum Pro
Problem is, a lot of people have never seen anything else.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Agreed. Those things could be built into a lot of cameras with surprisingly little effort. I've made many of them over the years, pretty much for as long as I've been into infrared photography, but I've also used them for all sorts of work, including portraiture. They don't obstruct anywhere near as much of your face, and there's something to be said for a "both eyes open, nothing but air between you and the subject" way of working. A real connection.
The big problem with wireframes is modern zoom cameras. Zooming a wireframe sucks. I've tried, once with the mechanism from a Bronica 645 telescopic bellows shade, and another time with something that changed sizes on the front wireframe with four right angle sliders.
Indeed.
I'm not.
My personal theory is that this is all "biology driven". Say an "average condition" pro can comfortably handle about 3kg of camera (got to tack a flash onto those 2.4-2.6kg rigs), so the camera makers keep adjusting the mix to give the pro something that gets the best compromise between complaints about it being too heavy and praise for the results it gives.
That's why we've seen pretty much a hundred years of 3kg rigs: Speed Graphic, Koni-Omega, Nikon F3, Nikon D3, you name it.
And we still have that going on, today. Some of those micro four thirds rigs are pretty loveable. I have a Canon P&S that's a real charmer. And Pentax has some killer APS rigs well below 3kg. It's even hard to configure a Pentax 645D to hit 3kg.
You should see the 35mm view camera I'm building.
No, but they sure look great on a bookshelf.
I always found working with square cameras, framing rectangular shots for later cropping, to be confusing as all heck. But that's just me, I know people who make it work.
I loved the look. 1/1000 sec exposure, with a 1/60 sec run time. All those athletes and race cars leaning forward so dramatically, always that sense of insane speed.
Indeed. Life poses, constantly. That's the trick, catching it posing.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
is that he doesn't see anything really wrong with not actually contributing anything to the thread, just popping in to make a personal attack.
Don't imagine you speak for everyone, open yourself up to the possibility that there may be many ways
Oh yes, he's the great projector.
Projecting his own self doubt
On anyone he sees anywhere
Because it's all for himself
Really, it's all for himself
And guess what? Unlike you or the other "one true wayists", the camera makers make cameras for all people, some with just back LCD, some with eyelevel EVF, some with OVF, some with two or even three of those choices, like the Fuji X1 or X100, that can project an EVF or OVF image in the eyelevel finder, or work on the back LCD.
I'm glad you "true wayists" haven't managed to badger camera companies into not offering what a variety of people want.
Oh, and when Barry said "The results of the AP poll are quite predictable..most folks hate using the rear LCD," it's interesting to note that the poll didn't actually say the word "hate", that's a "quite predictable" Barry embellishment. You see it crop up enough in his writing to give you a very deep insight into what really drives him.
The camera companies have offered, and continue to offer, a multitude of cameras. One of the big choices is between the camera thickness and the zoom range when you add an OVF. Since physics (that's part of the "real world", a place you may want to visit from time to time) says you can't have a camera under a certain thickness with a zooming viewfinder, you saw a lot of models where you'd have a 3x zoom OVF side by side with a 5x LCD only (that's a real example, my Canon SD had a "sister model" with an OVF).
Over the years, enough people (that's the photographers, not your hypothetical "camera makers are trying to save money" who "are guilty of ignoring their users") voted with their wallets, and we got to the point we're at, now, with back LCDs as the dominant finder in P&S cameras.
The camera companies, far from "ignoring their users" responded to what the users want. I'm sorry if that bothers you. There's nothing wrong with wanting something a bit different than what the multitudes want. I'm way out in left field as far as being a marketing demographic, myself. But I don't preach my personal style as the "one true way", like you do.
Once more, with feeling!
Oh yes, he's the great projector.
Projecting his own self doubt
On anyone he sees anywhere
Because it's all for himself
Really, it's all for himself
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
I've never heard you spout a mantra quite like that one. Several others, but not that one. But if that really is the way you feel, I suggest you try to get over it. Look at how that guy I was responding to looked, spouting a "one true way" mantra: "Why? Everyone could see that the smaller lighter 35mm cameras with their OVFs offered better results with less effort. "
Don't imagine you speak for everyone, open yourself up to the possibility that there may be many ways
Now, are you talking about Glan, or talking about yourself. Because, it really sounds like you're talking about yourself. A pattern you often repeat, Barry. To the point where I think you need a themesong. Something like...
Oh yes, he's the great projector.
Projecting his own self doubt
On anyone he sees anywhere
Because it's all for himself
Really, it's all for himself
No. Most folks in the demographic group that replied to that poll don't use it. In the broader demographic group of "most folks", without qualifying it as "AP readers", most folds are quite fine with it.
And guess what? Unlike you or the other "one true wayists", the camera makers make cameras for all people, some with just back LCD, some with eyelevel EVF, some with OVF, some with two or even three of those choices, like the Fuji X1 or X100, that can project an EVF or OVF image in the eyelevel finder, or work on the back LCD.
I'm glad you "true wayists" haven't managed to badger camera companies into not offering what a variety of people want.
Oh, and when Barry said "The results of the AP poll are quite predictable..most folks hate using the rear LCD," it's interesting to note that the poll didn't actually say the word "hate", that's a "quite predictable" Barry embellishment. You see it crop up enough in his writing to give you a very deep insight into what really drives him.
Or respecting them.
The camera companies have offered, and continue to offer, a multitude of cameras. One of the big choices is between the camera thickness and the zoom range when you add an OVF. Since physics (that's part of the "real world", a place you may want to visit from time to time) says you can't have a camera under a certain thickness with a zooming viewfinder, you saw a lot of models where you'd have a 3x zoom OVF side by side with a 5x LCD only (that's a real example, my Canon SD had a "sister model" with an OVF).
Over the years, enough people (that's the photographers, not your hypothetical "camera makers are trying to save money" who "are guilty of ignoring their users") voted with their wallets, and we got to the point we're at, now, with back LCDs as the dominant finder in P&S cameras.
The camera companies, far from "ignoring their users" responded to what the users want. I'm sorry if that bothers you. There's nothing wrong with wanting something a bit different than what the multitudes want. I'm way out in left field as far as being a marketing demographic, myself. But I don't preach my personal style as the "one true way", like you do.
No. Doing it "at the expense of common sense" would be if they discontinued their manual zoom lines and only offered power zoom. "One true wayism", like yours, except a different "one true way."
And there's Barry talking about what Barry needs, while painting that lack onto someone else.
Once more, with feeling!
Oh yes, he's the great projector.
Projecting his own self doubt
On anyone he sees anywhere
Because it's all for himself
Really, it's all for himself
And he projects another of his problems.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
We've heard it all before so post away and bore us all to death!
The results of the survey speak for themselves.
The results of the survey speak for themselves.
John Sheehy
Forum Pro
That depends on the type of scene. I can see the horizontal level better on the LCD than in the OVF, and for wide scenary shots where DOF is ample, I do not need to look into an OVF.
I can use the LCD at heights other than eye-level, as well, especially with cameras with articulating LCDs.
The rear LCD is hopeless for hand-held telephoto work, though.
--
John
I can use the LCD at heights other than eye-level, as well, especially with cameras with articulating LCDs.
The rear LCD is hopeless for hand-held telephoto work, though.
--
John
jon404
Senior Member
We are all, totally, utterly, and hopelessly, dating ourselves beyond belief... so last century.
Focusing. Dude, the camera does that. Composition? Framing the picture? Like, why bother? WTF, just point that thing, push the button. Like your BFF's cellphone, OMG!
The next big thing in pro photography may be that cellphone look -- shots from the hip, unplanned angles, new in-camera pseudo-Lomo filters. Might work fine for that wedding reception album!
--
Jonathon Donahue
Focusing. Dude, the camera does that. Composition? Framing the picture? Like, why bother? WTF, just point that thing, push the button. Like your BFF's cellphone, OMG!
The next big thing in pro photography may be that cellphone look -- shots from the hip, unplanned angles, new in-camera pseudo-Lomo filters. Might work fine for that wedding reception album!
--
Jonathon Donahue
jon404
Senior Member
Barry, the survey results are clear enough for people who read Amateur Photographer. What do you think -- mostly men, mostly older?
But as a user group, they are TOTALLY outnumbered by all the Point 'n Shooters... who are now sort of morphing into mobile device Point 'n Shooters. And these folks don't read Amateur Photography. They may not even think of their picture-taking as photography, since they take pictures with cellphones.
The oldest conceptual image of a photographer -- a man bent over a Deardorff 8 x 10 with a black cloth over his head -- is now a young woman holding up her iPhone to snap a picture, while simultaneously talking to her girlfriends, or texting.
These kid consumers DEMAND brighter, clearer screens. They already have the 'clearer' part in the bag... with screens like Apple's 316ppi Retina display. Brighter comes next, with better batteries to cope.
So I think we need to enjoy this new century's interpretation of our old view camera's ground glass. Could be worse -- what if Apple had gone for a neo-Rollei twin lens reflex?
--
Jonathon Donahue
But as a user group, they are TOTALLY outnumbered by all the Point 'n Shooters... who are now sort of morphing into mobile device Point 'n Shooters. And these folks don't read Amateur Photography. They may not even think of their picture-taking as photography, since they take pictures with cellphones.
The oldest conceptual image of a photographer -- a man bent over a Deardorff 8 x 10 with a black cloth over his head -- is now a young woman holding up her iPhone to snap a picture, while simultaneously talking to her girlfriends, or texting.
These kid consumers DEMAND brighter, clearer screens. They already have the 'clearer' part in the bag... with screens like Apple's 316ppi Retina display. Brighter comes next, with better batteries to cope.
So I think we need to enjoy this new century's interpretation of our old view camera's ground glass. Could be worse -- what if Apple had gone for a neo-Rollei twin lens reflex?
--
Jonathon Donahue
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's quite a popular magazine and has been for some time. I'm no fan of their reviews but it gets a broad readership I would imagine from many age groups.
Do we care though? There are plenty of p&s models for those who just want to do that.
The enthusiasts who are interested are looking for something a bit better than some camera with a tedious interface, no VF and mostly iffy IQ.
Personally I have no interest in camera phones, I have one but it's really not cutting the mustard even v the finepix I use from time to time.
They don't really demand anything because they will take whatever is on offer. Should we dumb down DSLR's because soccer mom won't use XYZ?
Apple have a talent for making overpriced consumer goods that sell very well. I'm sure if they entered the camera market they would do very well. But not for us..for the ill informed buyer who wants to look "cool"
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
As to how a viewfinderless camera, makes for better photography.
Well to be fair, Wisniewski might have answered it, but I never read his comments or the comments that follow, so I'll never know. In these forums, anytime you see a thread or a portion of a thread where just 2 people take part, it's pretty safe to assume that ideas aren't being traded nearly as often as insults.
Would anyone care to try explaining what's in it for us to have a non VF (Heck, any more, any sort of VF, not just OVF!) camera? That's the thing I don't get; even if you feel that 95% of your photos work just fine without using a VF, why would you be willing to give up on the remaining 5%? I don't understand the vigorous defense of tossing tools out of your tool box.
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Well to be fair, Wisniewski might have answered it, but I never read his comments or the comments that follow, so I'll never know. In these forums, anytime you see a thread or a portion of a thread where just 2 people take part, it's pretty safe to assume that ideas aren't being traded nearly as often as insults.
Would anyone care to try explaining what's in it for us to have a non VF (Heck, any more, any sort of VF, not just OVF!) camera? That's the thing I don't get; even if you feel that 95% of your photos work just fine without using a VF, why would you be willing to give up on the remaining 5%? I don't understand the vigorous defense of tossing tools out of your tool box.
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
That would be because your writing is generally incomprehensible. Have you ever noticed how fewer people respond to your posts than to just about any other frequent poster on dpReview.
Interesting. You deliberately do to someone else what almost everyone does to you?
For what reason? Because I disagree with your ravings? Newsflash, Glen, everyone disagrees with your ravings. 99.9% of people simply go "oh, that poor man", and move on. Anyone who actually makes some effort at communicating with you gets a big speech about how you're ignoring them. Except that you're not, your replies as you "post around" people make it clear that you hang on their every word.
You flounced once, made a big, dramatic speech about how we all suck and you were out of here for good. You should have stuck with that.
The reason you "don't get" that is because there isn't anyone advocating it. That's just the construction of a few people who think there's some vast, shadowy conspiracy to take their eye-level viewfinder cameras away.
Again, it's not possible to "understand" something that doesn't actually exist.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Indeed.
I guess that's why the survey showed that both systems have their adherents.
There will always be a need for telephotos, so there will always be eye level finders of some sort. There will also always be a need for architecture, macro, and other forms of photography that work better on an LCD, just like they worked better on a ground glass.
That's why cameras like the Speed Graphic that several people brought up could work both ways. Well, it's 2012 now, and cameras can offer both methods and still remain relatively compact.
Look at a Fuji X1, it offers a back LCD, and an eyelevel finder that's both an EVF and an OVF, as needed.
The future is full of choices and variety.
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
BruinBlue
Well-known member
I wouldn't want to pay 20% more for that 5% of instances where a VF is helpful. I'd rather spend that budget on a better sensor, better screen, video encoder, lighter body, etc.
My preferred shooting style is waist level with an articulating LCD. If there was an NEX-7 without VF at all for $200 less, I would have bought it. Barely use the EVF.
I'm glad Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and others still make OVF-equipped for those who need it. I'm just not among that group.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
Does the OVF on the Canon G series or Fuji X10 add 20% to the cost of a camera? Does an EVF add 20%? I mean, I could see a reluctance to spend the money for an SLR viewing system, or the fancy Fuji hybrid system, but surely, simple optical framing devices don't significantly add to the cost.
And how does getting rid of this device improve your photography?
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
And how does getting rid of this device improve your photography?
--
I'm so bright, my father calls me son.
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.jpgmag.com/people/glenbarrington/photos
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's a paper tiger argument. Do folks actually think they save money?
Is the OM-D cheaper than a DSLR of equivalent spec because it has no mirror box/OVF? No it's actually more expensive than comparable SLR's in that category
Look at the RX-100 or the new Sigma compact, neither have a viewfinder of any kind but they are quite expensive really/
Nobody is going to convince me that a DSLR costs less than a compact to manufacture, but the reality is that cost saving is NOT passed onto the customer.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
What Glen and the other "the camera makers are out to exploit us" conspiracy theorists don't get is that money is only one "cost of a camera". There's a size budget, a weight budget, and, in the case of an OVF, the issue of how much zoom range people will give up to get an eye-level finder.
- X10 has a 4:1 zoom, and it's a brick, 57mm thick.
- G1X is also 4:1, and 65mm thick
- G12 is a whopping 5:1, and 48mm thick
My S100 is 28mm thick, and a 5:1 zoom. Where do you put a 5:1 zoom finder in a 28mm thick "Altoids tin" form factor camera. Where do you put an EVF in a 198g camera?
In cameras that small, you're limited to a 3x zoom finder. That's just physics. The main lens can extend out, but what camera maker designs something with a powered OVF extending out from the camera?
I have an old S400, about 28mm thick, and 3:1 zoom. They actually had to cheat to get that working, the viewfinder zooms about 2.4:1, it's too narrow at the wide end by about 65%. Adds an element of surprise to your photography.
Oh, and the viewfinder front optics tend to get filthy, constantly. They're small, slightly recessed, and not protected between shots by an automatic cover like the main lens.
They're also a drag on the zoom motor, so slower, louder zooming, with decreased reliability.
OVF in anything that isn't a brick died in 2009 with the Canon SD1200.
EVF never really appeared on anything that wasn't a brick to start with.
And there he goes again, like there's only one "cost".
How to get this point across? Logic isn't working. Maybe if I quote Weegee
- f8 and be there!
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
tsiya
Senior Member
An unshielded LCD screen is nearly useless outdoors in bright sunlight and holding a camera at arms length is about as unstable as you can get.
--
tsiya [Bob]
http://www.pbase.com/tsiya/
--
tsiya [Bob]
http://www.pbase.com/tsiya/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum