Johan Borg
Senior Member
What you say makes no sense since contrast detection is slower than phase detection in almost all cases. Only Sony has phase detection in Live View, and therefore it's just as fast as using the viewfinder.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
need an entry level dslr with LIVE VIEW
- Thread starter anselesn
- Start date
TANK_JONES
Senior Member
I apologise for the jab. I should not have made a personal remark against you. However to answer your question, my assumption was not that you do not use live view...but that you don't use them often enough to see the benefit of using them and that you do not want to use them. I made the latter assumption based off your remark that you prefered to lay on the ground to view though a viewfinder to get a shot than to use live view. I can agree that the majority of current focusing mechanisms for live-view is fairly slow, however, there have been many improvements over them in currently released cameras and there will continue to be. Face detection and improved C-AF implimentation are two of which.first off, why would you assume I've never used it. I own well over 30 different bodies. some that I use, others I just collect and hang onto. I've used live view and for some aspects it can be good. Just saying, it will be more useful when they speed it up. using contrast detection or especially phase detection through live view is considerable longer than just have the cam contrast detect through the viewfinder. believe me, i don't talk (or type) for all the those don't get it, because I enjoy hearing myself talk. nor could you "assume" i don't know what I am talking about. when they speed up the process and I am sure they will...it will be of more use.
I'd be willing to bet that I could tilt/swivel my screen out, focus and take my shots from a low level position with live-view and be done before you could lay down on the ground and take you first shot.
I agree, traditional methods have the advantage of working as well. But discrediting a shooting solution simply because you yourself don't feel you want to use it (and obviously have not used it enough to realize the benefits of doing so) is kind of silly.
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
TANK_JONES
Senior Member
contrast detection is mostly used for fine detailed focusing... phase detection is faster and used mostly for moving subjects. Sony, however, is not the only one to use phase detection in Live-View... Nikon has it in the D3 and D300 and I am pretty sure that other manufacturers do as well, they're just not as vocal about it in their advertising.
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
Johan Borg
Senior Member
Yes, of course, sorry for misleading, but AFAIK the Nikons have to interrupt Live View during phase focusing, while the Sony is seamless like you're used to from the contrast detect focusing of the others.
joseph costa
Leading Member
yes the d3 and the d300 do. I own both and they are a bit slow at it unfortunately. but I do use it for my macro work. I love it for that.
contrast detection is mostly used for fine detailed focusing... phase detection is faster and used mostly for moving subjects. Sony, however, is not the only one to use phase detection in Live-View... Nikon has it in the D3 and D300 and I am pretty sure that other manufacturers do as well, they're just not as vocal about it in their advertising.
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
joseph costa
Leading Member
no worries sir! to me it's all about the images anyway as I am sure it is to you. what I love (passionate I should say) about photography is just how unique it is to the individual. No two people take the same photo the same way, you know?
I apologise for the jab. I should not have made a personal remark against you. However to answer your question, my assumption was not that you do not use live view...but that you don't use them often enough to see the benefit of using them and that you do not want to use them. I made the latter assumption based off your remark that you prefered to lay on the ground to view though a viewfinder to get a shot than to use live view. I can agree that the majority of current focusing mechanisms for live-view is fairly slow, however, there have been many improvements over them in currently released cameras and there will continue to be. Face detection and improved C-AF implimentation are two of which.first off, why would you assume I've never used it. I own well over 30 different bodies. some that I use, others I just collect and hang onto. I've used live view and for some aspects it can be good. Just saying, it will be more useful when they speed it up. using contrast detection or especially phase detection through live view is considerable longer than just have the cam contrast detect through the viewfinder. believe me, i don't talk (or type) for all the those don't get it, because I enjoy hearing myself talk. nor could you "assume" i don't know what I am talking about. when they speed up the process and I am sure they will...it will be of more use.
I'd be willing to bet that I could tilt/swivel my screen out, focus and take my shots from a low level position with live-view and be done before you could lay down on the ground and take you first shot.
I agree, traditional methods have the advantage of working as well. But discrediting a shooting solution simply because you yourself don't feel you want to use it (and obviously have not used it enough to realize the benefits of doing so) is kind of silly.
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
joseph costa
Leading Member
it's because the sony's utilize dual sensors one specially for utilizing the live view. I teach basic photography classes....beginners with a brand new dslr or thinking of getting into one.. I always push the sony alphas because even at their entry level pricing, they get the live view, they get image stabilization and even wireless flash capabilities. I actually just discovered that the other day.
The Canon XSI/450D has:
Live view with contrast detection focus
Live view with phase detection focus (the image disappears for a fraction of a second)
The ability to drive the camera from the computer - just use the USB cable and supplied EOS utility.
It will work perfectly well for what you are doing providing you can get sufficient light to close the aperture to get any desired dof.
TANK_JONES
Senior Member
Wireless flash is great in entry level dslr's... I hope this is something that continues to spread. And having a sensor just for live-view is a smart implimentation.
--
TANK
'Why is it everytime I need to get somewhere, we get
waylaid by jackassery?' - Dr. Venture
http://www.myspace.com/servantoflove
Have you tried a Panasonic G1, GH1 or GF1? If so, how would you compare them to Sony?
Maxwell Smart
Senior Member
Not really - it's my understanding that secondary sensor implementation is the reason that the vewfinders on Sony DSLR's with that feature are smaller than normal and take hits in reviews. I can certainly see why other manufacturers haven't implemented a secondary LiveView sensor to enable phase-detect AF with the mirror down - it's just not worth the consequences (and cost) for most users.
--
Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' ( Dr. Strangelove , 1964)
AlphaDSLR
Senior Member
The OP said he wanted a DSLR with live view. The cameras you mentioned are not DSLR's. They are similar to DSLR's but have an electronic viewfinder as opposed to an optical viewfinder through the lens. If he does not need a true DSLR and intends to use live view only, they are viable alternatives, but the viewfinder on a DSLR if vastly superior. The live view on Sony is superior to any other brand of DSLR.
--
'Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.'
Rene Descartes
AlphaDSLR
Senior Member
Depending on which models, what you say may or may not be fact. The Sony A330 has an optical viewfinder with a 0.74x magnification. The Sony A500 has a 0.80 magnification. Compare that to the Nikon D3000 at 0.8x and the Nikon D5000 at 0.78x. The non-live view Sony A230 has a 0.83x magnification so compared to it, the Nikons have a small, dim viewfinder. All are useable. Brighter is better. The OP wants live view and Sony is the best at that.
--
'Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.'
Rene Descartes
stickninja
Active member
Just to correct you, the Rebel XS does have Live View. I used it recently doing some landscape photography and some stuff on the beach.
--
Best Buy Associate: 'The Nikon D300 is a great camera. What kind of pictures do you want to take?'
Me: 'I need to take pictures from 30,000 feet up.'
Best Buy Associate: (dumbfounded look on his face)
--
Best Buy Associate: 'The Nikon D300 is a great camera. What kind of pictures do you want to take?'
Me: 'I need to take pictures from 30,000 feet up.'
Best Buy Associate: (dumbfounded look on his face)
Well, I know they're not DSLRs. But they're relevant , which I think is a more important consideration.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum