Will Alpha Preview??

[ywos]

Nope, wrong. SLR is defined by a single lens AND the presence of a mirror and a prism as apart for example from mirrorless, single lens rangefinders or view cameras. SLR is one of many camera designs, and even though I'm not a purist, I would like if the paradigm stayed the same - this has nothing to do with LCD displays, electronics, digital sensors or film. I like how they work, and that's why I use them. I don't need a live preview, I don't need a movie mode, those things may be useful to some but why would anyone force them into a reflex camera, and essentially cripple it, is beyond me.

 

[kage]

Believe what you want, but it's fine. I understand you must console yourself somehow.

Whatever rmakes you happy.

^ ^

• k a g e

 

[kage]

... it's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now.. i enjoy it as much as the next guy... but you kidna gotta wonder. Why do fish (or fishcatchers apparently), keep jumping in?

^

Thanks for the entertainment fish. It's been fun.

• k a g e

 

[fishcatcher]

You gave the same response to kage's lack of knowledge as I did on the movie thread. The message that you answered was word for word the same as the one I answered over there--I suppose he reposted hoping that someone would buy his claim over here. Judging from those who have responded, there do not seem to be many who want the DSLR radically modified at this time, anyway.

Now unfortunately, you will probably have to listen to one of his claptrap responses that don't address the issues inherent in significant design changes.

Nope, wrong. SLR is defined by a single lens AND the presence of a
mirror and a prism as apart for example from mirrorless, single
lens rangefinders or view cameras. SLR is one of many camera
designs, and even though I'm not a purist, I would like if the
paradigm stayed the same - this has nothing to do with LCD
displays, electronics, digital sensors or film. I like how they
work, and that's why I use them. I don't need a live preview, I
don't need a movie mode, those things may be useful to some but
why would anyone force them into a reflex camera, and essentially
cripple it, is beyond me.

 

[kage]

ah well, guess it can't be helped.

Anyway. Consider the cameras that came before it, then ask yourself what was the single biggest fundamental difference in how a picture was taken that came from the SLR development (sure there are mechanical innovations that were made to accomodate this goal, but stop and really think about it for a moment).

The rest should be self evident.

• k a g e

 

[fishcatcher]

kage,

If you can't argue, and you aren't really well enough informed to do much of that, chatter and banter are, I guess, the next best thing. You have definitely been entertaining.

... it's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now.. i enjoy it as much as the next guy... but you kidna gotta
wonder. Why do fish (or fishcatchers apparently), keep jumping in?

^

Thanks for the entertainment fish. It's been fun.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

What are these supposed insurmountable in the forseeable future issues?

How about a list.

I realize that having failed in your arguments you are joyfully clinging onto others, but come on, let's hear them, and while you're at it, why don't you provide the fact driven reasons why these things will be insurmountable by people much smarter than yourself in the forseeable future.

Would love to hear it (at least that kind of a post would be more about educating rather than amusing the audience).

• k a g e

 

[ywos]

Go read them.

Have you actually ever looked through the optical viewfinder of a SLR camera? How does it degrade what you see? The fact that it most accurately presents what the final image will look like is this system's biggest advantage. And what the hell is an "original SLR"? All SLRs use mirrors by definition, that's what the word "reflex" stands for!!!

 

[kage]

You certainly do sound like the type.

How about posting something more useful than "yatta yatta yatta"

^ ^

• k a g e

 

[kage]

I NEVER said that SLR's do not have mirrors.

And I NEVER said that an OVF will degrade image quality.

What are you mr fish with a different login?

Whatever you are, you definitely seem cut from the same ill-cited-non-post reading cloth.

• k a g e

 

[ywos]

I NEVER said that SLR's do not have mirrors.

And I NEVER said that an OVF will degrade image quality.

What are you mr fish with a different login?

Whatever you are, you definitely seem cut from the same
ill-cited-non-post reading cloth.

• k a g e

And this is what?

But, as I stated earlier (and as you talk about as well), for a DSLR an
EVF is far more in the spirit of the original SLR (seeing through the
lense so that what you see was what you got, the key part of that
being what you saw being what you got) than seeing directly what
the lense is seeing via a mirror.

or this

In that sense, in the age of the DSLR, the mirror no longer serves the
original intent of the SLR portion of the description.

What the hell is the "original intent of the SLR" that the mirror does not serve, when mirrors were always present in SLRs?

You're making a complete idiot of yourself...

 

[kage]

I never say it degrades the quality so those quotes serve to do nothing more than discredit yourself.

But I do refer to the spirit of the SLR... which is defined elsewhere in that post you so happily cut up.

Thanks for playing, but you'll have to try again.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

Exhibit A: the camera's that came before the SLR.
Exhibit B: the SLR

The biggest difference in the most essential, core element of taking a photograph, was that you were seeing through the lense.

Yes, the mirror was part of that. But the mirror was the means to the end. Thus it was there to serve the spirit of the SLR, which was to be able to see what you shot with more conistency and accuracy than what you could with a seperate rangefinder (or other framing method).

This is the distinction between what the goal was and what they did to get there.

The point I was trying to make (and that some apparently failed or chose not to grasp) was that as technology changes (including the core elements of whatmakes up an SLR. Sorry, a DSLR is not the same animal as an SLR), technology changes and should adapt to accomodate these things in order to maintain the original goal of the SLR (which ultimately was your end result being more in-line with what you saw when you took the shot).

Furthermore, the point was that it is foolish and shortsighted to dismiss the original spirit of something, just because you like the old trappings of what was required to make that possible in the past.

Personally I think the spirit of something is more important than the trappings, so if they have to change things to meet the spirit within a changing context, I am all for it.

And as I've stated in the past, if it is at the cost of existing quality, then of course it isn't worth it. But if not, then there really is no argument against it, if it doesn't take away from the original essential spirit of what an SLR was/is.

That being said, there are certain things that are somewhat irrelevant to preserving the original spirit of the SLR.

 

[ywos]

No, no trying again. You're rehashing the same BS in this thread again and again that at best is factually completely wrong, and at other times just doesn't make any sense. What are you actually arguing for? That current SLR design should be changed? Why? The SLR allows for perfect undistorted live preview of the scene thanks to it's mirror. That's it's biggest advantage, not a flaw for crying out loud. You want to replace that with some mediocre EVF?

 

[Bernie_King]

I remember (admittedly quite a bit of time ago) when stalwarts were
all...

"phooey! you could never capture the quality I capture on my film
SLR with your digicam"

I guess that changed a little bit huh.

^

• k a g e

We all love our digitals, but the truth of the matter is... you still can't beat film when it comes to quality.

--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking

 

[Ron van Elst]

Most of the Nay-sayers KNOW what you can achieve with a traditional OVF, because they have owned one for years and years already.

EVF is and always will be a compromise for the real human EYE. The one eye I shot hundreds of thousands pictures with already with great results.

Hey, why dont they go ahead and stick an EVF into a consumer market model and you go buy one. Fine with me..... but keep it away from the PRO-material please.

End of discussion I hope. We will NEVER come to terms about EVF.

Regards,

Ron van Elst

http://www.amazingnature.nl
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=222834

 

[ywos]

That was one long useless post that didn't say anything you haven't said before. In what way is a DSLR different from a SLR apart from the fact that instead of film it uses a digital sensor? You think that by viewing an image on some LCD screen representing what the sensor sees is an advantage? Shouldn't a sensor try to capture a scene the way you see it, and not the other way around - you having to compromise based on what a sensor/LCD preview tells you? Well I certainly don't want that, and I guess no SLR user does, and that's why I like the SLR (mirror!!!) system, because as I said again and again and as you ignored, it gives you the perfect preview. Isn't one of the biggest advantages of digital the fact that what the sensor captures does not have to be what the final image will look like? Why don't you stick to using an EVF camera if it's so hard for you to understand how single reflex cameras work.

 

[fishcatcher]

That was one long useless post that didn't say anything you haven't
said before. In what way is a DSLR different from a SLR apart from
the fact that instead of film it uses a digital sensor? You think
that by viewing an image on some LCD screen representing what the
sensor sees is an advantage? Shouldn't a sensor try to capture a
scene the way you see it, and not the other way around - you having
to compromise based on what a sensor/LCD preview tells you? Well I
certainly don't want that, and I guess no SLR user does, and that's
why I like the SLR (mirror!!!) system, because as I said again and
again and as you ignored, it gives you the perfect preview. Isn't
one of the biggest advantages of digital the fact that what the
sensor captures does not have to be what the final image will look
like? Why don't you stick to using an EVF camera if it's so hard
for you to understand how single reflex cameras work.

That is because kage doesn't have any DSLR experience (He doesn't own one) coupled with a poor understanding of camera development history--and really very little understanding of the present technology in a modern DSLR, the interrelationship of the mirror to the focusing system, and on and on. His "spirit of the SLR' mumbo jumbo is just him grasping for some straw to cling to.

I hope you have at least had as much fun listening to his ranting as I did--briefly, that is. His repetitions got very boring, in the end. And his childish attempts to distract from issues or read what has been said and intelligently respond to it (or to see the need for some factual basis of what he perceives as the inadequacy of the DSLR and argue it rather than just assert it) got tedious. He prefers yelling that those who don't see any technology right now that will essentially improve DSLRs must be Luddites. He thinks he will be persuasive by thumping his chest while telling others 'they don't get it'-- all just very transparent posturing. Yawn.

 

[kage]

Perhaps you interpreted it that way, but that's your deal not mine.

Perhaps you should try reading through all the posts before you jump into the fray.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

But my point wasn't meant to dispute that, this was meant to point out how quickly those that are so harsh on new technology change their tune.

• k a g e