Darren New wrote:
> 
> It certainly takes longer to focus than to get the image from the lens
> to the LCD. :-)

You clearly use AF :-).

>>  it's because of software, not because of existence of the optical
>> viewfinder.
> 
> Well, no, it's because the D90 doesn't have an infrared filter that
> drops down over the lens when you say "use infrared." :-)

Is that actually needed? I think the image could be manipulated
automatically by the software when you say "use infrared".

> If you had an optical filter and you're trying to line things up with
> infrared, you *eye* would have to be seeing the infrared.

Ehm... What's a filter dropping in front of the lens if not optical? :-)
Yes, if you want to see the IR at the optical viewfinder, you surely
need to see IR. But IMO it should be able to be done by the software (at
least well enough for lining up the image - you don't actually need a
HQ-image for that, at least at dark when you're using exposure times of
multiple seconds anyway).

> Sure.  I was just discussing some of the benefits of LCD viewfinder over
> optical viewfinder.

You were also wondering why SLR still needs the R :-).

>> 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.
> 
> Sure they have. That's exactly what I'm talking about hte Sony F707
> doing, aren't I?  That's basically just what the Sony does, except it
> has an LCD in the back and another behind the viewfinder.
> 

F707 is a SLR? I thought it's a pocket camera (no, I didn't check) or a
"half-SLR (SL?)"

-Aero

Post a reply to this message