Poor 810 sales

Started Aug 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
chuxter Forum Pro • Posts: 21,713
Re: other theoretical advantages

inasir1971 wrote:

chuxter wrote:

inasir1971 wrote:

am interested in better, not cheaper, and a sensor with a global shutter would give exactly the same advantages such as sync speed to a DSLR

But if you have a camera w/ an electronic global shutter [both start and stop...I refrain from using the SLR terms "first curtain" and "second curtain"], how can you use the legacy term "Reflex"? Why would you need to also have a mirror?

Doubtful that on sensor PDAF will ever rival the dedicated AF sensor that a mirror allows.

Your comment is not in reply to mine, which was questioning retaining the "R".

You join a long line of critics of change. It's disturbing. You will either die or get used to it.

EVFs are not superior to OVFs (see my reasons above)

What reasons above?

The subject of viewfinders is an interesting one:

  • What is a viewfinder for?
  • How "good" does a viewfinder have to be to "find a view"?
  • Is it imperative that an EVF be superior to an OVF in every measure?

A viewfinder is used to frame a scene so that when the shutter is operated, the picture contains an image of the subject. Some of the first "viewfinders" were nothing more than a wire frame sitting on top of the camera [Speed Graphic]:

Sure, many cameras of that era had a ground glass screen that could be used to precisely frame a scene, but these were not primarily "view finders"; rather they were "focusing screens". A pure viewfinder is used to simply "find a view".  For the vast majority of users, the camera/lens of a modern dSLR has a quite good automatic system for establishing focus. Mostly, the viewfinder has to allow the photographer to accurately frame the scene. There are some other tasks, like supplying information and allowing the photographer to select/monitor focus points.

SO how "good" does an EVF have to be to do this job? The truth is that it doesn't need to be as good as many people insist. I have an old Coolpix 5700 that is a ML camera [although we didn't use that term in 2002]. It's EVF is crude, but I have never failed to be able to frame a scene, even when the 5700 was incapable of focusing. Some people ALWAYS mention that the view through an EVF is "ugly". That can be true. They say that it doesn't look like the "real" image through an OVF. That is also true. They say that they can't "enjoy" the view through an EVF, which is silly. Most people have TWO eyes; open the other eye and enjoy the scene all you want! They say the image in a EVF is not real; but neither is the image I'm looking at right now on my computer monitor and when I print out a picture, that's not real either. Yet, I never hear these same people reject CRT/LCD monitors and ink jet printers! It's got to be some bias they have?

I for one am willing to give up a pretty, optical view through a viewfinder to get the advantages:

  • Overlay of information...lots of information! And the information can overlay the image when appropriate
  • A good simulation of what the picture will actually look like when taken
  • Notification of "blown-out" areas BEFORE the picture is taken
  • Magnification of a live image for checking focus in advance of capture or to focus manually
  • Never having to pull camera from eye to "chimp" a result [besides, the LCD on the back can't be viewed critically in daylight]

Then there is the issue of refresh rate. Often action photographers say that an EVF is too slow for them to capture peak action. That was perhaps true 10+ years ago, but today many EVFs have very high refresh rates. As I have documented several times before, humans don't have a very accurate or fast nervous system. The human brain can at best move a finger to within 0.2 seconds [in response to some external event that is viewed visually]. It would seem intuitive that an EVF that has a refresh rate 2 orders of magnitude faster than 0.2 seconds would be quite satisfactory. That the die-hards refuse to admit this is also a bias, I believe.

One point that isn't discussed much is that a ML camera doesn't need an EVF and an LCD! It needs one or the other. That frees up real estate, makes the batteries last longer, makes the camera lighter, etc. I would prefer a ML camera w/ an EVF, but it's OK to make them both ways.

 chuxter's gear list:chuxter's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Tamron SP 90mm F2.8 Di VC USD 1:1 Macro (F004) Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow