DSLR with "Live" Histogram?

[capecodchris]

I am pretty sure that the 1005 segment metering system IS usable with the mirror in place. Otherwise how does the camera establish white balance and exposure? The whole problem is that a histogram is pretty useless when you think about it since there is no "proper" histogram for every image. Additionally what does the meter do? It properly calcualtes the exposure so the histogram is not needed. The biggest problem with histogram chimping is that it doesn't show all the channels R,G,B and you can blow out just one channel when the histogram "looks" great. Most if not all pictures of red flowers posted on this site have the red channel clipped and the photographer doesn't even know it!

Chris

 

[rsn48]

I too think the use of a "live historgram" would have limited applications. from the "snap and make adjustments" feature we now have. I still haven't seen anyone answer the gentleman's question regarding the advantage of a live historgram. In sports action, I can see an advantage if the pic taken isn't repetitive, after the first pic - if it is repetitive - then reading the last histogram is just as helpful.

I would see this feature being about as useful as those cameras with 10 shots per second deals. This feature sounds great, but how many actually use it? Only a small percentage of photographers would need this function.

 

[JIM NODLER]

I too think the use of a "live historgram" would have limited
applications. from the "snap and make adjustments" feature we now
have. I still haven't seen anyone answer the gentleman's question
regarding the advantage of a live historgram. In sports action, I
can see an advantage if the pic taken isn't repetitive, after the
first pic - if it is repetitive - then reading the last histogram
is just as helpful.

I would see this feature being about as useful as those cameras
with 10 shots per second deals. This feature sounds great, but how
many actually use it? Only a small percentage of photographers
would need this function.

Actually, the advantage would be the ability to judge the exposure better than the meter in a slowly evolving situation, such as a sunset. This is not possible in most dslr's because the mirror must remain in place to look through the viewfinder however, it should be possible to build in a mode which allows capture and display along with the histogram much like the A1 does. This will greatly reduce the battery life, but would be a useful feature for some.

I still use the minolta's in most studio sessions, because the quality is great and I really appreciate the constant live display as contrasted to having to squint through the viewfinder. [by the way, they are very durable, I have three- each with over 30k exposures on them and only the first d7 has ever been in the shop]. I wish my nikon's had that feature for this very reason. Not interested in the histogram but the live display would be great.

--
correct information is more valuable than gold

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, the advantage would be the ability to judge the exposure
better than the meter in a slowly evolving situation, such as a
sunset. This is not possible in most dslr's because the mirror
must remain in place to look through the viewfinder however, it
should be possible to build in a mode which allows capture and
display along with the histogram much like the A1 does. This will
greatly reduce the battery life, but would be a useful feature for
some.

Slowly evolving situation.

So I snap and look at the hstogram. I still don't see how a "live" histogram improves my capability to judge the proper exposure. And what of the times that the correct exposure framing is not the correct artistic framing? If I "lock" the histogram to reframe, I might just as well just taken a meter reading and locked that.

Or are we talking about people who don't know how to read a meter?

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Not with the mirror in the way they are not.

The mirror isn't in the way of the metering CCD. There's a lot of stuff in a DSLR that either sees through the mirror (like the AF sensors) or sees the view that the mirror reflects (like the metering cells, up in the prism housing).

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I would see this feature being about as useful as those cameras
with 10 shots per second deals. This feature sounds great, but how
many actually use it? Only a small percentage of photographers
would need this function.

And you've just hit upon the definition of a pro camera. It has the features that you need, whichever small percentage you're in.

A small percentage needs 8 frames/second.

An entirely different small percentage needs a 1/8000 sec top shutter speed.

A different small percentage needs ISO 3200.

Yet another small percentage needs an AF system fast enough to track a runner sliding into home or a race car rounding the corner.

So, rather than make 25 different pro cameras, each with a target audience of about 500 photographers, the camera companies load them up so that one camera has all the special features that any photographer needs, and sells them by the 10's of thousands.

So, to get the particular feature you need, you have to put up with the baggage of the particular features that a bunch of other photographers need, and you don't.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[RDKirk]

And you've just hit upon the definition of a pro camera. It has the
features that you need, whichever small percentage you're in.

A small percentage needs 8 frames/second.

An entirely different small percentage needs a 1/8000 sec top
shutter speed.

A different small percentage needs ISO 3200.

Yet another small percentage needs an AF system fast enough to
track a runner sliding into home or a race car rounding the corner.

So, rather than make 25 different pro cameras, each with a target
audience of about 500 photographers, the camera companies load them
up so that one camera has all the special features that any
photographer needs, and sells them by the 10's of thousands.

Well, you have't described the 1Ds. Or any medium format camera. You've described a camera designed for sports or pj photographers, or others who have to shoot fast and furiuously.

Such a person doesn't have time to do pre-shot histo-peering.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I'm not sure if it is a mistake in your English here or not, but
your arguement does not make sense. MF / LF cameras are certianly
not 'point and shoot' MF and LF cameras are in general 100% manual,

Possibly the reference was to a waist level viewfinder being similar to one orientation of a flip out LCD.

Wayne Larmon

I think that one has all simply to figure out what he/she really
neads. And please, be careful before generalizing... a famous
italian photographer, Pepi Merisio, who was already shooting some
50 years ago, recently declared that, concernng digital cameras, he
likes what most people here would call point and shot, exactly
because it is possible to compose the frame in a way not too
different from MF and LF cameras... So... one should be careful
before stating that certain requests come only from "illiterate"
persons.

best regards. alessandro

 

[riddell]

Well, you have't described the 1Ds. Or any medium format camera.
You've described a camera designed for sports or pj photographers,
or others who have to shoot fast and furiuously.

Such a person doesn't have time to do pre-shot histo-peering.

Exactly, and if you go to the other end of people, such as those shooting in a studio, you'll be carefully balancing up the lights and shooting correctly. You've already metered manually becuase you set those lights up for f8, or whatever you are shooting. You do not adjust the camera. You adjust the lights not the camera.

 

[riddell]

I'm not sure if it is a mistake in your English here or not, but
your arguement does not make sense. MF / LF cameras are certianly
not 'point and shoot' MF and LF cameras are in general 100% manual,

Possibly the reference was to a waist level viewfinder being
similar to one orientation of a flip out LCD.

Perhaps if the gentleman is getting old, and his eyesight failing, but there is no way that an LCD would come even close to the quality of an optical waist level finder.

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I'm not sure if it is a mistake in your English here or not, but
your arguement does not make sense. MF / LF cameras are certianly
not 'point and shoot' MF and LF cameras are in general 100% manual,

Possibly the reference was to a waist level viewfinder being
similar to one orientation of a flip out LCD.

Perhaps if the gentleman is getting old, and his eyesight failing,
but there is no way that an LCD would come even close to the
quality of an optical waist level finder.

It is if the primary objective is to hold the camera at waist level while being able to see something that that shows what the lens is seeing. The "quality" is "can I do this at all?" "Yes" is high quality, "No" is low quality.

But I suspect that we are nit picking at this point. Which is a low quality discussion.

Wayne Larmon

 

[Leon Wittwer]

I am pretty sure that the 1005 segment metering system IS usable
with the mirror in place.

The poor resolution would probably compromise the quality of the histogram. It would be easy to miss a few small bright features. The existing histograms in most cameras already have this problem.

The biggest problem with histogram chimping is that it
doesn't show all the channels R,G,B and you can blow out just one
channel when the histogram "looks" great. Most if not all pictures
of red flowers posted on this site have the red channel clipped and
the photographer doesn't even know it!

Yes, although some DSLRs like the 1D MK II has three channel histograms. Some non-DSLRs also have them. They are very helpful.

Regarding the original issue, I usually get a good exposure and I chimp just to ensure I did not. Sort of a security blanket.

Chris

--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Slowly evolving situation.

So I snap and look at the hstogram. I still don't see how a "live"
histogram improves my capability to judge the proper exposure. And
what of the times that the correct exposure framing is not the
correct artistic framing? If I "lock" the histogram to reframe, I
might just as well just taken a meter reading and locked that.

Or are we talking about people who don't know how to read a meter?

Depends on the meter. Most measure luminance. If you have a bright color like red, a good luminance measurement can still result in blowing out a color channel. Histograms for each color channel helps see if this is happening. Before I had the color histograms, I had to estimate the exposure if I had a dominant color and underexpose to ensure I did not blow a channel. Since I felt I had to be conservative, I generally lost up to a stop of my brightness range. Histograms also show how I did in the shadows and if I should up the exposure (without blowing out a channel) to get more shadow information. Histograms are nice to have.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Most are assuming that photographers do only one thing with a camera and thus can argue for or against any particular feature. How about versatility? More capability features (and cost) provide more versatility to get more shots over a wider range of conditions. I purchased my last camera with versatility in mind even though I emphasize landscape shots.
--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[riddell]

I meant to hold at waist level and manually focus, like an MF system, isn't really accurately achievable with an LCD.

 

[riddell]

No, I am not assuming that. That photographers only do only thing.

What I am assuming though is that there is only one or perhaps two or three or a few correct ways of doing things, and thousands of wrong ways.

Too many inexperienced people practisce the thousands.

 

[Leon Wittwer]

Ok. I suspect that there are multiple ways of doing almost everything. Not quite as many ways as good photographers but almost. The main thing is to do what works for you. I would say that what works for a particular photographer often has a lot to do with the history of the photographer. New things tend to be grafted on to old experience. An example is using ACR in Photoshop. Before ACR, I learned to do a good job using curves, USM, masks, etc. With ACR, I tend to still rely on my ability with PS proper and use ACR for the initial cut. As I use ACR more, the emphasis is shifting a bit.

No, I am not assuming that. That photographers only do only thing.

What I am assuming though is that there is only one or perhaps two
or three or a few correct ways of doing things, and thousands of
wrong ways.

Too many inexperienced people practisce the thousands.

--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I meant to hold at waist level and manually focus, like an MF
system, isn't really accurately achievable with an LCD.

OK. Maybe the reference was about framing and composing.

I am not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to understand the reference that alessandro made, because he indicated that language translation might be an issue.

Wayne Larmon

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

And you've just hit upon the definition of a pro camera. It has the
features that you need, whichever small percentage you're in.

A small percentage needs 8 frames/second.

An entirely different small percentage needs a 1/8000 sec top
shutter speed.

A different small percentage needs ISO 3200.

Yet another small percentage needs an AF system fast enough to
track a runner sliding into home or a race car rounding the corner.

So, rather than make 25 different pro cameras, each with a target
audience of about 500 photographers, the camera companies load them
up so that one camera has all the special features that any
photographer needs, and sells them by the 10's of thousands.

Well, you have't described the 1Ds. Or any medium format camera.
You've described a camera designed for sports or pj photographers,
or others who have to shoot fast and furiuously.

Such a person doesn't have time to do pre-shot histo-peering.

OK then, how about mirror lockup? The sports shooter won't care about it, the macro photographer or wildlife photographer wants it.

Really good TTL flash. The studio photographer doesn't care, but the event photographer loves it.

Interchangable focusing screens. The sports shooter is happy with the plain screen that comes with the camera. the architectural photographers wants to be able to swap in a grid.

Sorry, I didn't gover the entire bloody feature space of a pro camera. But I'd wager you understood the argument perfectly well, and you're just playing semantic games.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Daniel Bell]

Or are we talking about people who don't know how to read a meter?

Depends on the meter. Most measure luminance. If you have a
bright color like red, a good luminance measurement can still
result in blowing out a color channel. Histograms for each color
channel helps see if this is happening. Before I had the color
histograms, I had to estimate the exposure if I had a dominant
color and underexpose to ensure I did not blow a channel. Since I
felt I had to be conservative, I generally lost up to a stop of my
brightness range. Histograms also show how I did in the shadows
and if I should up the exposure (without blowing out a channel) to
get more shadow information. Histograms are nice to have.

This is truly becoming an argument about approach. For what I shoot and the way I work, I see no advantage to seeing the histogram before I shoot vs. after. If I had a camera without per-channel histograms, I'd just bracket (including an extra under-exposure to be sure that I don't blow out any channels). That habit is so ingrained that I do it anyway, regardless of what the histogram says. There are also plenty of times when I'll bracket a shot and NOT look at the histogram, because I'm relatively sure I have at least one correctly-exposed frame. That doesn't make me "opposed" to histograms or their use, it's just to say that it's only one tool that can be used to make a correctly-exposed image.

Each to his own. I, for one, would not pay anything extra for a live histogram. I would not want a camera whose viewfinder is compromised in any way to make this possible. In fact, one of my biggest gripes against most current DSLRs is that their viewfinders are lousy. I WOULD pay extra for a viewfinder that looks as good as the ones on my old film cameras.

--
http://www.forgottenspaces.com