 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> It means there is a mirror in there.
Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
eyepiece. You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal
mechanics, waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw
fancy stuff on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No
left-overs from mechanical days. Plus, you can do IR.
I'm still not sure how the thing autofocuses without interrupting the light.
I can only guess it's using a half-silvered mirror, and hence the
prohibition against linear polarizers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:05:50 -0700 schrieb Darren New:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
You'll never get the same resolution with a monitor ;). For me for this
reason live view doesn't make much sense with a DSLR - although I have to
admit that beeing able to shoot movies with different lenses with the
Nikon D90 (and some Canon models) is very cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:05:50 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
>
> My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
> eyepiece.
Your D90 can do this too, though the image is displayed on the back LCD
instead of in the viewfinder.
> You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal mechanics,
> waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw fancy stuff
> on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No left-overs
> from mechanical days.
The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
> I'm still not sure how the thing autofocuses without interrupting the
> light. I can only guess it's using a half-silvered mirror, and hence the
> prohibition against linear polarizers.
Actually, there are two mirrors. The big one is indeed semi-transparent.
Most of the light is reflected up towards the viewfinder and exposure
meter, and the rest goes to the smaller mirror which reflects the light
down towards the autofocus sensor. Linear polarisers can mess with
exposure because they can alter the proportion of light that reaches the
exposure sensor.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> You'll never get the same resolution with a monitor ;).
True. But then I can zoom in on bits while I'm lining up the shot to see if
it's in focus and such. My eyes aren't good enough to see that difference
anyway.
And, of course, if they splurged on an LCD with the same resolution as the
image sensor, it would be a bogus reason. (Of course, it would be silly to
do that.)
> For me for this
> reason live view doesn't make much sense with a DSLR
It would make a lot more sense if the LCD swiveled. I can't count the number
of pics I took with my Sony by holding it over the heads of the crowd.
> - although I have to
> admit that beeing able to shoot movies with different lenses with the
> Nikon D90 (and some Canon models) is very cool.
Yep. Altho I find I don't watch the movies nearly as often as I watch the
photos, I *have* figured out how to get the D90 movies to play over the XBox
on the big-screen HDTV.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Your D90 can do this too, though the image is displayed on the back LCD
> instead of in the viewfinder.
Yeah. The Sony I have does both, which is nice when it's bright out. And (as
I said) you can tip the LCD on the Sony so you can shoot from other angles.
> The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
> through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
Sure. I'm just not sure what the benefit of an optical viewfinder is over an
LCD viewfinder. The Sony seems to do a better job of autofocus, but then
I've had years to play with it and learn its quirks, so maybe phase-detect
is a better method.
> Actually, there are two mirrors. The big one is indeed semi-transparent.
> Most of the light is reflected up towards the viewfinder and exposure
> meter, and the rest goes to the smaller mirror which reflects the light
> down towards the autofocus sensor. Linear polarisers can mess with
> exposure because they can alter the proportion of light that reaches the
> exposure sensor.
More precisely, they'll screw up your half-silvered mirrors' reflections.
The linear polarizer is exactly messing with reflections off transparent
surfaces (i.e., prisms), which is exactly why you wear them when fishing or
driving in a car with glass windows that have reflections in them otherwise.
I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on my
photos, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:39:33 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
>> through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
>
> Sure. I'm just not sure what the benefit of an optical viewfinder is
> over an LCD viewfinder.
Resolution, colour fidelity, response time.
> The Sony seems to do a better job of autofocus, but then I've had years
> to play with it and learn its quirks, so maybe phase-detect is a better
> method.
Phase-detect is generally faster, often much faster. Contrast-detect
autofocus, if implemented well, can be more accurate.
Also, contrast detect AF requires having the sensor powered up.
> I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on my
> photos, tho.
If you are aiming for the "deep-blue sky" look, you will want to point the
turn the polariser to match.
If you just want to see the polariser in action, look at an LCD through it
while slowly turning it.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Oddly, the way the strap is connected to the Nikon, the camera tends to
> hang at a 45-degree angle with any lens more than a couple inches long,
> leaving the bottom edge to dig into your chest if you let it hang. I
> guess it's hard to fix it, at least without putting (say) swivel mounts
> for the straps or something.
>
That is something I have to agree on, but I've learned how to carry the
camera so that that doesn't bother. To be more precise, Nikon is more
ergonomic _for me_ than Canon, everyone has theier own style to shoot,
therefore it ain't The Only Truth :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
>
> My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
> eyepiece. You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal
> mechanics, waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw
> fancy stuff on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No
> left-overs from mechanical days. Plus, you can do IR.
It's possible that I just haven't seen the right one, but every single
LCD-viewfinder I've seen has seriously lagged behind the real world,
hence not getting even near optical viewfinder.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Resolution, colour fidelity, response time.
OK. Resolution on my sony is already better than I can see, and I'm not
going to get faster fidelity or response time out of the camera than it's
giving me on the viewfinder. :-)
> Phase-detect is generally faster, often much faster.
That I noticed, just playing with the live view. Contrast-detect is prett
y
quick on the sony, assuming that's what it's using.
>> I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on
>> my photos, tho.
>
> If you are aiming for the "deep-blue sky" look, you will want to point
> the lens (with polariser) 90° away from the sun. Of course, you al
so
> need to turn the polariser to match.
It's a circular polarizer? I'm pretty sure reflections are linearly
polarized, than that's usually when I want a particular polarizer.
> If you just want to see the polariser in action, look at an LCD through
> it while slowly turning it.
I'll give that a go.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> It's possible that I just haven't seen the right one, but every single
> LCD-viewfinder I've seen has seriously lagged behind the real world,
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. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
