DSLR with "Live" Histogram?

[RDKirk]

I'm still not hearing what live histograms actually do for anyone that snap-and-check doesn't do just as quickly and even better.

Remember that a live histogram, also, is merely an estimate of "if the picture were taken right now at the present settings, this is what it might look like," while with snap-and-check, you get "This is the actual histogram."

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

 

[riddell]

I'm still not hearing what live histograms actually do for anyone
that snap-and-check doesn't do just as quickly and even better.

I'd also like to know a PROFESSIONAL based senario where looking at a live histogram improves your work flow and the end result, rather than hinders it.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

There happen to be well-known uses for all those features--I can point out how each one enhances the ability of the photographer to get a picture he could not otherwise get.

I'm not against versatility. I am against adding frills that don't have real uses--just because someone thought of adding them. A few weeks ago, someone was complaining that the 20D doesn't have GPS. Well, frankly, I can see more uses for a camera with GPS than I can for a live histogram on a DSLR.

TANSTAAFL rules; nothing comes without cost. If they find a way to put in a live histogram, it's going to cost us something in return--there's going to be a tradeoff. More money, more weight, more code to carry bugs, more electronics to carry defects, a new learning curve, et cetera. Nobody has told me yet what benefit we'd get in return for the costs.

Bottom line question: How would a live histogram on a DSLR enhance the ability to get a picture he could not otherwise get? Nobody's told me that yet.

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

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I'm still not hearing what live histograms actually do for anyone
that snap-and-check doesn't do just as quickly and even better.

I'd also like to know a PROFESSIONAL based senario where looking at
a live histogram improves your work flow and the end result, rather
than hinders it.

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that professionals don't use light meters anymore?

Wayne Larmon

 

[riddell]

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

Yes its a FORM of lightmeter, in a way. It is not a lightmeter. Thats why professionals still use them (lightmeters that is)

 

[RDKirk]

I'm still not hearing what live histograms actually do for anyone
that snap-and-check doesn't do just as quickly and even better.

I'd also like to know a PROFESSIONAL based senario where looking at
a live histogram improves your work flow and the end result, rather
than hinders it.

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

What a debate tactic!
"Let's get a Ferrari sports car!"

"Why do we need a Ferrari sports car in addition to the Lamborghini, the Rolls, and the Land Rover that we already have?"

"Isn't a Ferrari a form of transportation? Are you saying we don't need transportation anymore?"
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[barolo]

if anybody is interested, here is the sentence that you can find at pags 135-136 of "Tutti Fotografi", June 2004.

Question: "Cosa chiederesti ad una macchina fotografica?" (what would you request from a photocamera?).

Pepi Merisio: "... Il secondo aspetto e' il mirino... Ho apprezzato in passato...mirini sportivi a prisma... da osservare sotto un angolo di 45 gradi. Oggi una proposta per quache verso equivalente e' data dai visualizzatori delle digitali. Digitali compatte pero', che assicurano di pre-vedere l'inquadratura." (... The second point is the finder... I appreciated in the past... sport viewfinder... to be viewed from a 45 degrees angle. Today a somewwhat similar possibility is given by the displays of digital cameras. Compact digital cameras, I mean, that allow you to pre-visualize the frame).

I do not know how good is my english, but I think that I translated rather faithfully and that also my original post was consistent with Merisio idea. Concerning myself, I share his viewpoint. Others can have different priorities.

regards, alessandro

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I'm still not hearing what live histograms actually do for anyone
that snap-and-check doesn't do just as quickly and even better.

I'd also like to know a PROFESSIONAL based senario where looking at
a live histogram improves your work flow and the end result, rather
than hinders it.

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

What a debate tactic!
"Let's get a Ferrari sports car!"
"Why do we need a Ferrari sports car in addition to the
Lamborghini, the Rolls, and the Land Rover that we already have?"
"Isn't a Ferrari a form of transportation? Are you saying we don't
need transportation anymore?"

My point isn't at all comparable to that. It sounded to me like the objections to live histogram that have been raised in this thread reduced to stating that metering the scene before taking the exposure is an unprofessional way to work. I was attempting to clarify the discussion.

The subject is discussing a method of metering the exposure, is it not? Histogram --> metering is a whole lot closer than Ferrari --> transportation.

Wayne Larmon

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

Yes its a FORM of lightmeter, in a way. It is not a lightmeter.
Thats why professionals still use them (lightmeters that is)

OK, then in what ways is using a light meter acceptable but using a (hypothetical) live histogram isn't? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the measuring device for both is exactly the same. That the only difference is the way the results are displayed. Assume that the device is a new model Sekonic meter that had an additional display mode that displayed as a histogram, in addition to displaying numerical results. Would enabling the histogram mode be unprofessional?

Wayne Larmon

 

[RDKirk]

This debate is not about whether or not the camera has a histogram; we've already agreed that histograms in general are valuable. The debate is whether or not it needs a "live" ("real time") histogram IN ADDITION or INSTEAD OF the current post-view histogram.

So no argument about the utility of histograms in general is relevant to the current debate. we currently have a good post-view histogram...what will adding the cost of a real-time histogram buy us over what we currently have?

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

Yes its a FORM of lightmeter, in a way. It is not a lightmeter.
Thats why professionals still use them (lightmeters that is)

OK, then in what ways is using a light meter acceptable but using a
(hypothetical) live histogram isn't? Assume, for the sake of
argument, that the measuring device for both is exactly the same.
That the only difference is the way the results are displayed.
Assume that the device is a new model Sekonic meter that had an
additional display mode that displayed as a histogram, in addition
to displaying numerical results. Would enabling the histogram
mode be unprofessional?

Wayne Larmon

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

 

[Wayne Larmon]

This debate is not about whether or not the camera has a histogram;
we've already agreed that histograms in general are valuable. The
debate is whether or not it needs a "live" ("real time") histogram
IN ADDITION or INSTEAD OF the current post-view histogram.

So no argument about the utility of histograms in general is
relevant to the current debate. we currently have a good post-view
histogram...what will adding the cost of a real-time histogram buy
us over what we currently have?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the discussion about metering before the exposure vs. metering after the exposure? Or are you saying that taking a practice shot for the sole purpose of examining the histogram is the functional equivalent of a live histogram, so there isn't a need to expend resources to implement a live histogram?

Wayne Larmon

Isn't a live histogram a form of light meter? Are you saying that
professionals don't use light meters anymore?

Yes its a FORM of lightmeter, in a way. It is not a lightmeter.
Thats why professionals still use them (lightmeters that is)

OK, then in what ways is using a light meter acceptable but using a
(hypothetical) live histogram isn't? Assume, for the sake of
argument, that the measuring device for both is exactly the same.
That the only difference is the way the results are displayed.
Assume that the device is a new model Sekonic meter that had an
additional display mode that displayed as a histogram, in addition
to displaying numerical results. Would enabling the histogram
mode be unprofessional?

Wayne Larmon

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

 

[RDKirk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the discussion about metering
before the exposure vs. metering after the exposure?

No, it's about having a "live" (real-time) histogram versus a post-view histogram

"Does anyone know if there are any digital SLR's that have a live histogram display while setting up a shot. In other words, the output of the metering system on the LCD? I'm not sure how this could be achieved, but, while I want to move up to a DSLR, I hate to leave behind the liver histogram mode on my A1. I guess if I could have my druthers, I would like to have a camera body like the A2 with the EVF that has something like 920,000 pixels (100 percent field of view an live histogram) but be able to use removable lenses. "

Or are you
saying that taking a practice shot for the sole purpose of
examining the histogram is the functional equivalent of a live
histogram, so there isn't a need to expend resources to implement a
live histogram?

I keep asking for an example of how a real-time histogram provides a better picture-creation capability than a post-view histogram. Nobody's told me yet. We're not worrying about saving film--saving the calories expended in pressing the shutter release, perhaps?

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

 

[Leon Wittwer]

I keep asking for an example of how a real-time histogram provides
a better picture-creation capability than a post-view histogram.
Nobody's told me yet. We're not worrying about saving film--saving
the calories expended in pressing the shutter release, perhaps?

Having a real time histogram might speed up the shot process particularly if it showed a blown color channel. Light meters are generally based on luminance and strong colors can blow color channels while a luminance measurement shows an ok exposure. I don't consider this a big deal as it don't take long to do a test shot and delete it.

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

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

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the discussion about metering
before the exposure vs. metering after the exposure?

No, it's about having a "live" (real-time) histogram versus a
post-view histogram

"Does anyone know if there are any digital SLR's that have a live
histogram display while setting up a shot. In other words, the
output of the metering system on the LCD? I'm not sure how this
could be achieved, but, while I want to move up to a DSLR, I hate
to leave behind the liver histogram mode on my A1. I guess if I
could have my druthers, I would like to have a camera body like the
A2 with the EVF that has something like 920,000 pixels (100 percent
field of view an live histogram) but be able to use removable
lenses. "

I know what the initial post said. My question was about the theme of the rest of the thread that was in response to the initial post. Previously I responded to you

"It sounded to me like the objections to live histogram that have been raised in this thread reduced to stating that metering the scene before taking the exposure is an unprofessional way to work."

and you never responded.

Or are you
saying that taking a practice shot for the sole purpose of
examining the histogram is the functional equivalent of a live
histogram, so there isn't a need to expend resources to implement a
live histogram?

I keep asking for an example of how a real-time histogram provides
a better picture-creation capability than a post-view histogram.
Nobody's told me yet. We're not worrying about saving film--saving
the calories expended in pressing the shutter release, perhaps?

Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.

Wayne Larmon

 

[Roshni]

As I have written elsewhere, they may be a market for a simplified camera taking lenses from the 35mm camera format and mating camera body with an EVF instead of Reflex system.

I don't expect this such a system would appeal to pros at all, but it might appeal to people who want a decent sized chip in an otherwise light and portable body. I'd like the old style dial controls though.

Like myself.

 

[Mike Fulton]

I don't think ANYBODY, especially pros, would turn down a live
histogram feature if there were no tradeoff involved.

But the problem is that there are really, really BIG tradeoffs when
you're talking about adding live preview to an SLR camera. And
pros are simply NOT WILLING, in general, to give up those other
features that would have to go.

He didn't say "preview", he said "histogram". Remember, the Nikon
D1X, D1H, D2X, D2H, and D70 have 1005 zone CCDs for their metering
systems, and are quite capable of producing histograms on the fly.

I wasn't confusing "preview" and "histogram" --- I simply didn't think that the metering system in these cameras, or in any other SLR, was going to provide sufficient coverage of the entire frame to create a meaningful histogram.

From the reviews I've seen, the 1005-zone metering system in the Nikon cameras does an excellent job at determining exposure, but it does NOT provide 100% frame coverage, does it?

If a histogram leaves even just 10% of the image unsampled, it's going to be inaccurate. Sometimes the margin of error might be small, but it will often be quite large.

The only way to get a reliably accurate histogram is to sample the ENTIRE image. So that means that the regular image sensor would have to be involved.

Mike

 

[Matt K134792]

It is extremly unlikely you'll ever find a dSLR with EVF or Live
histograms.

"Ever" is way too strong a word, But I'd be inclined to bet on the opposite.

This has been discussed on here many times.

Agreed, but we still see "which tripod", and "which meter", so lets play-a-long.

Manufactures rightly take the attitude that someone with an SLR has
the decent photographic skills.

State your source ? Do you mean these same manufactures who give us the almighty "program" mode. Do you really think that manufactures are blind to the ratio of amatures to Pro's who purchase their units.

Therefore a live histogram becomes less useful,

Ummm, again...where on earth is that coming from ? When does a tool like the histogram become less usefull ? At what point does someone with {{your words} "decent photographic skills".}} say to themselves "Self...I'm just soooo dam good, that I don't need that stinkin histogram thingamaboby."

Simply put (IMHO) Live histograms are the best thing since sliced bread, I miss having one, and would have gladly paid extra to have one in my DSLR. A live histogram allowed me to adjust my exposure according to the tonal values within an image, and shave time, and storage space by not having to bracket.

and an EVF totally useless.

As technology gets better, we may all be using one...I don't know for sure, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
--
Regards....Matt K
' Why isn't Phonetic spelled the way it sounds ???? '

'You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn't waste either.'....Galen Rowell
Exerpt from Thom Hogan's web Site http://www.bythom.com a must visit site for all.

 

[riddell]

OK, lets just re-phrase that.

I'm talking about professional systems, used by professionals.

Who knows what you'll see at the lower end.

It is extremly unlikely you'll ever find a dSLR with EVF or Live
histograms.

"Ever" is way too strong a word, But I'd be inclined to bet on the
opposite.

This has been discussed on here many times.

Agreed, but we still see "which tripod", and "which meter", so lets
play-a-long.

Manufactures rightly take the attitude that someone with an SLR has
the decent photographic skills.

State your source ? Do you mean these same manufactures who give us
the almighty "program" mode. Do you really think that manufactures
are blind to the ratio of amatures to Pro's who purchase their
units.

Therefore a live histogram becomes less useful,

Ummm, again...where on earth is that coming from ? When does a tool
like the histogram become less usefull ? At what point does someone
with {{your words} "decent photographic skills".}} say to
themselves "Self...I'm just soooo dam good, that I don't need that
stinkin histogram thingamaboby."
Simply put (IMHO) Live histograms are the best thing since sliced
bread, I miss having one, and would have gladly paid extra to have
one in my DSLR. A live histogram allowed me to adjust my exposure
according to the tonal values within an image, and shave time, and
storage space by not having to bracket.

and an EVF totally useless.

As technology gets better, we may all be using one...I don't know
for sure, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
--
Regards....Matt K
' Why isn't Phonetic spelled the way it sounds ???? '

'You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day and you only get so
many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and
doesn't waste either.'....Galen Rowell
Exerpt from Thom Hogan's web Site http://www.bythom.com a must visit site
for all.

 

[riddell]

I keep asking for an example of how a real-time histogram provides
a better picture-creation capability than a post-view histogram.
Nobody's told me yet. We're not worrying about saving film--saving
the calories expended in pressing the shutter release, perhaps?

I too would like someone to give me a pro based situation, where this live histogram will improve your workflow, or end result.

No one has been able to give me a situation yet either.

 

[RDKirk]

"It sounded to me like the objections to live histogram that have
been raised in this thread reduced to stating that metering the
scene before taking the exposure is an unprofessional way to work."

and you never responded.

I certainly stated my point of view repeatedly enough for anyone to know what it is; Real-time histograms don't add anything substantive to the workflow or the product. Considering the technical effort required to provide a real-time histogram, it simply isn't worth it.

Because it might be easier and faster to adjust exposure while
viewing a live histogram than it would be to repeatedly shoot and
revise exposure settings based on the post-view histogram.

Are you visualizing a "head-up"-style histogram in the viewfinder? That would be the only way it would be faster. If you have to glance down at an LCD, you'd be better off having captured the exact scene that you're trying to evaluate.

Putting in a head-up real-time histogram in a DSLR viewfinder would be an even greater challenge--with no more than a moment's timesaving at best. It might be advisable at that point to determine whether the workflow of examining a histogram is even logically compatible with trying to follow action in a viewfinder. If the requirement is for absolute speed (because the real-time histogram isn't going to save more than a moment), studying a histogram isn't the path to aboslute speed.

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