OVF: Solution looking for problem

[illy]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting
screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's
no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there
to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Boris

it's called radar
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

ooops my bad, you meant unmanned, they optical imaging systems, similar to those on the front of Apache's and police helicopters, FLIR and the like
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

 

[BorisK1]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting
screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's
no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there
to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Boris

it's called radar

I'm talking about the screen being electronic, with all the disadvantages of EVFs (lag, pixels, limited DR, etc.)

 

[olyflyer]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting
screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's
no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there
to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Totally different problem, totally different technology and a totally different price tag.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[BorisK1]

Totally different problem, totally different technology and a totally
different price tag.

The very basic "problem" is the same: Targeting.
The technology is the same: Electronic screen.
The price tag - you've got a point there

 

[Lee Jay]

Talk about not reading. Read what I wrote and what you wrote above.

What you wrote was an insult, followed by a vague explanation, both
irrelevant to the subjet at hand.

Irrelevant? You claimed this:

When tracking a moving target, especially for a fast-moving target in good light, the phase-detection system is actually at a disadvantage.

I explained why that is wrong. The "coverage holes" argument is irrelevant, because if your subject falls between AF points, it's way, way too small in the frame to make a decent shot anyway.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[illy]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting
screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's
no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there
to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Boris

it's called radar

I'm talking about the screen being electronic, with all the
disadvantages of EVFs (lag, pixels, limited DR, etc.)

well it's like anything military, it will be top notch priority stuff, and what maybe wanted for a EVF for a camera might be totally unnecessary for the military, most of it will be IR or B&W displays
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

 

[juslilolme]

Moving the mirror takes zero power?

Practically zero power, but anyway, moving the mirror has nothing to
do with OVF, it has to do with the shutter.

It's part of the system of which we are debating the merits. Let's not split hairs. Implementing an OVF in an SLR involves moving the mirror out of the way to take a picture, which takes power.

A macro shooter may use EVF exclusively, and to better effect,
for instance. Someone with high priority on small size/unobtrusiveness
may not be best served by a large OVF camera when other alternatives
exist that can give excellent image quality.

Let me guess, you are not a macro shooter, or you have one of those
cameras which some people regard as having a dim OVF. I'd definitely
not like to have the E-3 OVF being replaced with the best available
EVF, and I shoot macro. I mean real macro, down to (or should I say
up to) 17:1. The best alternative so far is the OVF of the E-3. The
second best (but not available) would be the OVF of the E-3 with a
proper focus screen. The EVF is way down (= totally outside) my
priority list, even for macro.

I didn't say something like "macro cannot be shot well with an OVF". However, a "perfectly" designed EVF would allow greater precision than you could ever achieve with the naked eye using any modern OVF. Whether the improvement is worthless is another debate.

The point of the format is smallness, for which a key element is
eliminating the space-hogging mirror box. So yes, in part it is "the
point of the format".

Does it really matter? I mean the idea is to be able to use 4/3
lenses.

No, hence the new lenses which will be made specifically for m43. Yes, the whole point here is smallness.

Now, put on the 50-200 and tell me the 10mm or so is a saving
worth the trouble.

As has been remarked upon at GREAT length, the strength of the m43 format will not be in using long telephotos, for which one may as well plop on an adapter and use existing lenses, and/or use a different back.

Of course, if you use the camera with the 25/2.8
than it makes a difference

New lenses will be announced specifically for m43-- it will be possible to make pancake primes even smaller than that.

To sum up: people seriously interested in this don't consider it to be a be-all, end-all format just because for some things, there will be no appreciable size/weight savings. That doesn't mean that the format has no merit, or that the use of EVF etc. is some sort of major drawback.

 

[BorisK1]

I explained why that is wrong.

You did nothing of the sort.

But more to the point, you barged into this subthread with an insult, and I'm not letting you get away with it.

Boris

 

[juslilolme]

Ask yourself:
how much mechanical mirror design can be improved in the next years,
and how much electronics can?

The OVF uses zero power, has instant response, and its resolution
exceeds that of your eyes. It's hard to improve on that.

Really? Moving the mirror takes zero power?

When the mirror is up, the OVF is not working. The OVF uses zero
power. Taking a picture uses power.

So... moving the mirror uses power, eh? I thought as much.

In any event these are
the strengths of the OVF. It's often possible to improve on the
weaknesses of something that has strengths.

Weaknesses include cost and mechanical complexity.

... and SIZE.

Which concept is stale, reached the
limits of what it can deliver, and which one is continuously
improved, and there are practically no limits to its further
improvements?

No limits? The quantum efficiency of the sensor is a limit, and the
power required to process images at high speeds as a lower limit.

The latter is not a limit to improvement.

Power (energy, really) is a scarce commodity in a small, portable
device.

Not too "scarce" to take hundreds of beautiful images. You make it sound like the power required to run the processor is a killer here! This is a mite silly, and the tech involved in both the battery and processor are improving all the time.

The point of the format is smallness, for which a key element is
eliminating the space-hogging mirror box. So yes, in part it is "the
point of the format".

I doubt the micro 4/3 will end up being small enough to drive sales
just on size.

Not I. The sizes in the Olympus marketing mockup are plenty small enough. I have no doubts they will achieve / have already achieved this.

The FZ50 has an even smaller sensor, no mirror box,
and it's bigger than the E-420 and kit lens.

Yeah, but that just means it's not the best implementation of a small camera, doesn't it?

Micro 4/3 will be
slightly smaller than conventional SLRs, not nearly as small as
pocketable compacts.

I dunno. The released specs seem pocketable enough to me. We'll see.

 

[BorisK1]

well it's like anything military, it will be top notch priority
stuff, and what maybe wanted for a EVF for a camera might be totally
unnecessary for the military, most of it will be IR or B&W displays

Yes, definitely. I don't think I'd want a 10 lbs camera that would require two months of training and a security clearance to operate

I'm just saying somehow, they learned how to deal with the lag problem.