Darren New wrote:

> My Sony lags one picture behind, basically. If you're in the dark and
> it's going to take a 1/2 second exposure to get the picture, it lags
> half a second. But you see how bright it's going to be (assuming you're
> not using the flash and assuming you're not *way* out of line, like into
> the >2s exposures), and if things are moving so fast the viewfinder
> can't keep up, chances are the rest of the camera won't keep up
either. :-)
>

It doubles the delay - when you're aiming for the shot you'll need to
stop for a moment to see what you're shooting. Maybe it's me and my
habit to make fast turns etc, but I've found it annoingly disturbing.

> 
> Plus, of course, if you're in the dark, you can line up the shot with
> infrared before you take the shot with the flash. :-) Or without the
> flash, for that matter.

Yes, that's a benefit. But missing that on D90 (does it miss that?) it's
because of software, not because of existence of the optical viewfinder.
As you know, with D90 you can shoot video and AFAIK you see the video on
the LCD at the same time, which proves that it's technically perfectly
possible to turn the mirror, catch the light to the sensor and show it
on screen. Nothing (except filtering optics) prevents from using the IR.
Also nothing (except price) prevents from making the LCD turnable so
that you could use it as a viewfinder while shooting over crowd.

> Definite benefits either way, I suppose.
> 

Yep, except nothing stops camera makers from implementing the SLR LCD to
work as a viewfinder and getting those benefits. They just haven't done
it, at least not yet.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message