Will Alpha Preview??

[kage]

I won't (and don't and haven't) pretended like I know how that will go. My postings regarding EVF haven't been a battle cry to replace the OVF with the EVF.

Read very carefully everything that I have written. And read the underlying principle that I have stated since day one of this subject.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

A true mark of an "expert".

Posturing indeed.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

First of all, as I've stated many times in the past (but i realize you need a battle cry, so have at it), I haven't insisted on an EVF being replaced by an OVF.

Second of all.

Consider this. If the sensor has limitations, and the end result is going to be different then what you are seeing via the reflected image taken in from the lense, then which is better?

1: Seeing what your end product is actually going to be (ie: what the sensor is actually seeing)

2: Bypassing that altogether and just seeing what is coming through the lense?

The first option allows you to compensate for any limitations/idiosyncacies of the sensor and thus give you the chance to make corrections/adjustments to how you shoot as you shoot in the field (which is one of the biggest benefits of going digital in the first place), while the second requires you to review the shot after the fact to see if it took the way you were expecting it to take.

Now, cool your heads and REALLY think about this for a moment.

• k a g e

PS: This is of course assuming that an EVF has come up to par with an OVF in other areas (which I have already acknowledged many times it has not... perhaps y'all should check your selective memories at the door).

 

[Ron van Elst]

Don't you known what 'end of discussion' means, mr. Kage?

Goodbye.

 

[kage]

And you are missing the point altogether.

The strengths of your point have already been acknowledged, and I can respect some of what youa re saying, but there are definite holes in this principal that the OVF is the end all be all when it comes to digital photography... when we are speaking about digital photography.

If you had the opportunity to REALLY see how your film (not digital) would end up after it was developed WHILE you were in the field, would you cast that aside and say "bah!"? Or would that actually be a benefit to your ability to take the shots that you are intending to take.

By seeing what the sensor is seeing (which is not what an OVF is doing... now wasy there people.. I'm STILL not arguing against OVF's in a digi cam so settle down now), you actually have that opportunity. That is a gift! One of the key benefits that digital photography affords us.

In an anecdote I made in the infamous "moviemode" thread I spoke about a case where in school I spent an entire day in the freezing cold taking photographs for a final project (yes I know... admittedly not the smartest choice of subjects for my project ^ ), only to return to the lab to find that it was not at all what I had expected. If I had a modern DLSR back then, this would never have happened as I could have reviewed each shot after I took them (I did end up using a photography technique to er.. "fix" the problem... or at least assure that I didn't get an "F", but I would have much preferred to have actually shot the shots i was aiming for ^ ^). But imagine the NEXT level where what I was seeing through my viewfinder AS I was shooting was EXACTLY what I was going to end up with at the end of the day.

Now, assuming that EVF technology will only continue to improve (technology improves, that's what it does, consider the difference in quality between SDTV and HDTV), and reaches a point where it (for all intents and purposes) becomes indistinguishible from an OVF, I certainly cannot understand the objection to that. At that point any objector is simply being unreasonable.

And as always, I speak of future improvements, and understand, acknowledge, and accept the limitations of today (which is WHY in the aforementioned "moviemode" thread I made the distinct point of NOT suggesting that an OVF was removed to solve the problem).

I dunno.... perhaps I should consider shortening my posts to easily digestable "sound bites" so that people will actually read through them instead of skimming (or whatever it is that you people are doing that is causing certain very clearly stated statements to be missed). ^

• k a g e

 

[Ron van Elst]

But I can decide to end my discussion with you and that's what I did in my last post.

Shut the door when you leave please....bye bye.

 

[kage]

don't let the door hit you on the way out.

• k a g e

 

[Prismatic]

Will it have a version of preview.

sej

I really wish it'll have a preview with a wide TFT or OLED screen and high resolution.

And while they're at it, there's no reason not to include a sound out jack, in stereo of course. Otherwise what's it good for? And the sound should have Dolby Noise Reduction, which is only a tiny add-on since the camera already has noise reduction.

And you can't have all this without a tuner for TV & radio channels (Hi-Def, of course), because most of the time you're not shooting anyway. This way it's infinitely more useful.

And it won't do to have all this without at least a terabyte of storage, because how will you keep all those shows you missed?

And don't forget the integrated cell phone & PDA, and the courtesy mirror on the reverse side of the folding LCD, so you can arrange your hair and see who's coming at you from behind.

And, and, and... If it doesn't have all these things, then it's just ancient. It's got to move forward and change for the better. Ya'know?

All the other photog's I know, they shoot weddings, sports and work in the Washington DC Press Corps. None of them have a camera like this. Boy, will I show them!

--



Alpha Beta Tester

 

[kage]

... and this kind of condescension is why DSLR users get the rep they get. I seeit's well deserved.

the poor dude is just asking about a single feature.. that isn't even THAT unreasonable, and y'all are going all shark attack on him.

OF course if you take what he said and then blow it up with your own bigoted view of what he is ACTUALLY SAYING he wants, it's going to sound crazy and unreasonable.

What is with you people anyway? Are y'all THAT insecure and unhappy in your lives that you have to pounce on this sort of thing?

I'll ALWAYS support the underdog. Especially if he really hasn't done ANYTHING wrong.

• k a g e

PS: People wonder why I haven't gone DSLR.. seems like a natural progression. I started on film SLR's, then experimented and fell in love with digital photography... but then I sniffed the stench of what some of you DSLR heads were spouting and thought to myself "you know what... I definitely don't want to be one of those". If you guys are truly the "elite" of photography as some of you seem to think, then consider taking more of a mentorly position rather than being an elitist a-hole.

 

[fishcatcher]

Do you have a cape and mask to go with that! Geez, I don't really think I'd want you defending me if I were an underdog.

Now that you have divulged that you don't shoot DSLRs--even though it would be natural progression--because as you put it "you sniifed the stench' of DSLR shooters and, I guess, just couldn't demean your self by shooting one. (That logic is even more disconnected than many of your other claims).

But, obviously, you don't mind coming onto a DSLR forum to set evryone straight with your lack of knowledge and lack of experience. Gee, thanks!

Could be you are the one who needs to reflect on things a bit. Useless suggestion, I know.

OK, time for another little rant from you again. Everyone who doesn't agree with you--or your approach-- is insecure, unhappy, a-holes, smelly DSLR heads, condescending, etc, etc, etc. Can you vary the rhetoric just a bit more. Something new? It is getting, well, boring.

... and this kind of condescension is why DSLR users get the rep
they get. I seeit's well deserved.

the poor dude is just asking about a single feature.. that isn't
even THAT unreasonable, and y'all are going all shark attack on him.

OF course if you take what he said and then blow it up with your
own bigoted view of what he is ACTUALLY SAYING he wants, it's going
to sound crazy and unreasonable.

What is with you people anyway? Are y'all THAT insecure and
unhappy in your lives that you have to pounce on this sort of thing?

I'll ALWAYS support the underdog. Especially if he really hasn't
done ANYTHING wrong.

• k a g e

PS: People wonder why I haven't gone DSLR.. seems like a natural
progression. I started on film SLR's, then experimented and fell
in love with digital photography... but then I sniffed the stench
of what some of you DSLR heads were spouting and thought to myself
"you know what... I definitely don't want to be one of those". If
you guys are truly the "elite" of photography as some of you seem
to think, then consider taking more of a mentorly position rather
than being an elitist a-hole.

 

[kage]

... must be a nice life.

It isn't about people disagreeing, it's about you guys being total jerks in the process.

It's funny how you continue to skirt the heart of what I'm talking about, and prefer to go on the attack regarding either irrelevant side tangents or complete misrepresentations.

But you know... I do see where you are coming from (especially following your last few postings). You've really got nothing going on, , nothing else, you just want to spout your DSLR elitist vitriol and that's it.

I guess everyone has their hobbies.

As for me not wanting to "demean myself" ah yes, your favorite past time of putting words in other people's mouths... is that a DSLR Elitist trait? Seems to be. What I said was that I didn't want to be one of those... you know. Part of what seems like (and has been rather colorfully illustrated by yourself) such an elitist, closed minded, intollerant community. Who the hell would?

Now I should not that I am sure there are many great DSLR owners/users/pro's out there. But you and your ilk are certainly not amongst them... though you seem the most active... at least when it comes to curious users coming in and asking such "horriffic" questions like "Will it have a version of preview?" (yes I know.. it's horrible.. i had to shield the eyes of children when I typed that quote).

As for why I.. a non-current DSLR owner (for shame) would come into a DSLR forum (I guess I missed the members only sign on my way in) and dare (gasp) to hang out and (cringe) speak my mind. It's primarily to see what's up. What kind of news is available, and to hear what other people have to say and think.

Not to go around squashing non-believers godzilla style like y'all seem rather fond of doing.

This by the way isn't a rant. Perhaps you should find yourself a dictionary.

As for the rest of your rather useless post. Really dude? I mean... come on.

• k a g e

 

[dlkeller]

is in the future. Right now I see no need for live preview. They systems out there now don't give as good of an image as the pentaprism (or pentamirror) system. The only advantage is the ability to move it around, for that you sacrifice a clear image that allows you to focus accurately. That is the state of the art today.

If, at some point in the future, the state of the art changes to give a preview that is sharp, clear, not washed out by sunlight, etc, then it will be an equal and possibly better system. Until that future date keep the two types of cameras for the two personalities and personal tastes, but don't force your live preview on me. I preferred using the viewfinder on my point and shoot Minolta 404S. I could see more in it than in the LCD. Besides, you get a real unsteady position, even with antishake, in the typical LCD reading picture taking position.

 

[sej1001]

I've heard a lot of engineer talk in this thread, although not from any engineers. I think I mentioned that I simply have a limitation with my shoulder. I have an injury that has plagued me for years, with my still photog. I hate monopods and love hand holding, but I cannot hold a heavier camera with a large lens and flash for very long.

It would help me, due to a "SHOULDER INJURY" that I have struggled with in my photography for years. This is why I am excited about the technology, and NO I don't need to go to sony forum and discuss the R1.

In olympus' announcement of the E330, they stated that they felt all of the manufacturers would eventually follow with preview dslr's. I'd say their qualified to make that statement. I'd also say that if someone can get it right it would be Sony. They will have more than one camera to select from and I'm sure if they do have a preview camera, they will also have one or more that "don't preview." For those who are offended by such amateurish technology.

You KM/Sony people are a tough bunch. I guess if I do buy into Sony/KM, I'll be discussing photography in some other forum?

sej

 

[sej1001]

Have you tried an E330?
Do you Manual Focus with your DSLR?

Have you read any articles about AF accuracy or should I say inaccuracy. If, absolute focus accuracy is what we are talking about then the E330 with it's 10X zoom during MF is tac sharp! Also, if we want to compare, I have seen dozens of comparisons with OLDER Manual Focus technology, which conclusively showed it was "much more accurate" than "any" autofocus system today...period. Some of the higher end dslr's are now introducing split contrast screens that you can add, to once again get the accuracy of manual focus. I bought the E-1 after comparing it's ovf contrast with many other cameras. I love to be able to manual focus, but most of the time you cannot finely descriminate focus on any of the new AF systems.

My Canon A-1 has the most accurate focus system of any camera I own, but I rarely shoot with it now days.

Let me put it this way. Take your camera, put a battery pack on it, put a 2.8 lens on it, put a full power flash on it. Now shoot for a couple of hours with it indoors. If your shoulders don't get fatigued....your the man. I have an injury, but even without that problem, I would love to be able to change my holding angle and shoot a lot of shots like medium format from waste level.

Sorry for such a controversial question......it is my last in SonyDSLR!

sej

 

[fishcatcher]

I've heard a lot of engineer talk in this thread, although not from
any engineers. I think I mentioned that I simply have a limitation
with my shoulder. I have an injury that has plagued me for years,
with my still photog. I hate monopods and love hand holding, but I
cannot hold a heavier camera with a large lens and flash for very
long.

Sorry that you have an affliction, but I don't immediately see how live preview per se would help, so I presume you are asking if the camera will have an LCD that will allow you to hold the camera at waist view so you don't have to hold it to your eye.

The obvious answer is that nobody knows at this point.

And if it has an LCD with live preview, no one will know whether that is implemented like the Oly 330 or differently. Sony has not released any details yet. You have asked a question for which there is no answer.

It would help me, due to a "SHOULDER INJURY" that I have struggled
with in my photography for years. This is why I am excited about
the technology, and NO I don't need to go to sony forum and discuss
the R1.

In olympus' announcement of the E330, they stated that they felt
all of the manufacturers would eventually follow with preview
dslr's. I'd say their qualified to make that statement. I'd also
say that if someone can get it right it would be Sony. They will
have more than one camera to select from and I'm sure if they do
have a preview camera, they will also have one or more that "don't
preview." For those who are offended by such amateurish technology.

Oly may be right. One hpes that if Sony does do that, it will be a better implementation than the 330--you obviously have found it deficient, as have a fair number on the Oly forum.

You KM/Sony people are a tough bunch. I guess if I do buy into
Sony/KM, I'll be discussing photography in some other forum?

Which forum would you choose?

sej

 

[kage]

I agree that if any company will make it work in the end, it will be Sony, as they have the capacity (R&D, technically, manufacturing and otherwise) to make the advancements necessary to make it happen.

Not only that, it is more within Sony's culture to experiment and innovate in that fasion.

So I have faith.

Looking at the tech as it is availabel at present, maybe not this time around, but who knows... maybe Sony will surprise us. That'd be nice huh ^ ^

The British Journal of Photography article that went around earlier today (link in case you missed it: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=327184 ) seems to indicate that it's not simply a rebadging of existing KM SLR's, and that Sony is not afraid to exert it's influence and PoV over their newly acquired assets (which is their right as they bought the company), so that seems to open things up for the future.

I, like others, hope that in that process the things that gave the KM designs their appeal (some of the ergonomic/control decisions that have been much touted on the 7D camera come to mind), and the core strengths of the SLR format in general are preserved (or even improved upon... that'd be a nice feat eh?).

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what Sony has to offer with quite a bit of optimism, and am excited to see how things develop over consecutive generations of Sony SLR's.

• k a g e

 

[kage]

Sorry for such a controversial question......it is my last in
SonyDSLR!

sej

Dude... you SO, do not have to be apologizing. Yours was a completely reasonable post.

I know exactly how you're feeling as, well... I've been there in the past when dealin with some DSLR heads, but I'm really really REALLY hoping that the Sony SLR community is more like the Sony Talk community than anything else.

It would be a real shame if the more moderate (non-elitist) types were driven off.

Don't apologize. You did nothing wrong.

• k a g e

 

[Bernie_King]

Don't take it personally. You have to understand that most of us from the KM forum are basically at our wits end about this Sony DSLR. We all love our KM's the way they are and are hoping that Sony has taken a lot from the KM legacy that we all love. Most of us have had SLR's for years and have a certain expectation for quality that we know an EVF would not give. Live preview is typically a code word for EVF. One day, I'm sure we'll end up with EFV's and they'll be great, but now... In any case, our nerves are just frazzled. We're scared to death that Sony's going to jump the gun on some of these features that are certainly not ready for market and spoil the investment we have in Minolta glass. I have almost $2000.00 in lenses, and believe me, I'm on the light side here. There's tons of guys here with lenses that cost more than $1500.00 each, so you can understand the apprehension.

Once the cameras come out everything will go back to normal. People will rave about the things they like, and complain about the quirks, but it will be a much calmer tone. Most of the people that post regularly in the KM forum are great and really want to help. Since the takeover was announced we've all been on the edge of our seats (or the abyss as the case may be) waiting to see what will happen. We've had people come in with EVF talk and the like and get everyone excited. Once we all see that Sony is doing things right, all will be well again.

In any case, that got long winded. Sorry if we jumped you, but then again look at the huge thread you started . Don't go away, we're really not mad at you.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bernarrking

 

[gipper51]

I am not a seasoned SLR user, as my first SLR is a DSLR that I've had less than a year, but having owned several P&S cameras with

EVFs I'll have to say I may switch to C or N if they don't have OVF in the new Sony's. The current DSLRs represent many years of technology and refinement and is a proven system that works. Tampering with it and changing fundamental designs are often not welcome. This holds true for everthing from cars to sports to cameras. If they offer a new class of SLR with live preview and whatever then that's fine, but please offer a 'regular' DSLR for those who still think "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and just like the way something that's been around for a while works. I'm one of those folks. I don't care if new designs and styles come out as long as they still make the kind of camera I want. Many guys still prefer film, and I'm sure they'll be upset when the day comes you cannot buy a new film camera, no matter how much 'better' digital is by then. I'm all for improvements in cameras, but don't change the heart that makes the camera system what it is. Call me old fashioned but I like seeing the world with my own eye through a lens as opposed to how a computer generated LCD picture interprets a bunch of 1s and 0s, even if it may be more accurate. I may shed a tear when the day comes they no longer make internal combustion engines, same for the day DSLRs no longer have mirrors and OVFs.
--
Just another rookie with a camera

 

[kage]

But it is undeniable that these things are not just liikely to happen. But do in fact happen.

History has shown us over and over again that this is the case.

Even in recent memory Kodak has made announcements in that regard, and even a stalwart such as Nikon has made announcements towards that effect.

True, in Nikon's case they also said they would continue to manufacture one or two models... but you gotta admit, such a large specifically worded change in focus by a company distinguished by it's film legacy, does make a guy sit up and focus.

Now, this isn't me saying film is evil blah blah blah kill film blah blah blah so don't get your panties all wound up (you know who you are).

This is me saying, that as the contemporary context of what the mass market wants, even the unthinkable change can, and does often happen (and if you think bout it a digital viewport added to a digital camera is far less of a shift than the phasing out of an entire legacy of photography).

• k a g e