Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Another feature that has been standard for years (with both SLRs and 
> smaller cameras) is that you can hook up the camera to a computer and 
> use the computer screen as a viewfinder and/or review screen.

See webcam timershot:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

Works good, altho I haven't tried it with the D90 yet.

-- 
   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:
> 
> They have. It is called "Live view" and is pretty much standard on
> recent SLRs.

Also for IR? And the tilting LCD AFAIK is still unseen on SLR.

> Another feature that has been standard for years (with both SLRs and
> smaller cameras) is that you can hook up the camera to a computer and
> use the computer screen as a viewfinder and/or review screen.

Yes, but laptop is a bit.. problematic on crowd :).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

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

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:42:01 +0200, Eero Ahonen  
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> They have. It is called "Live view" and is pretty much standard on
>> recent SLRs.
>
> Also for IR?

That is a matter of optics and filtering. Most cameras have an IR-blocking  
filter mounted over the sensor.



> And the tilting LCD AFAIK is still unseen on SLR.

Not unseen, just uncommon.



> Yes, but laptop is a bit.. problematic on crowd :).

http://laptop.istheshit.net



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> That is a matter of optics and filtering. Most cameras have an 
> IR-blocking filter mounted over the sensor.

Yes. But you have to also block the optical wavelengths, so it's not 
something you can install and have work. You actually have to change things 
inside the camera. (Or, on a SLR, I guess you could get a specifically IR 
lens or something.)

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

I would have thought they wouldn't put in moving parts and extra filters if 
it wasn't actually needed. For one thing, you have to block the visible 
light from getting to the sensor, yes?

>> 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.

That's my point. If you're not looking at an LCD, but instead you're looking 
out the lens, you won't be able to see the IR that you're photographing.

> 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).

With the Sony, you can either take the picture in IR (which is quick, 
espeically if you put on an IR flash), or you can line up the photo using IR 
and then take a flash photo. I don't think it takes that long an exposure, 
as I have a movie camera that will also film in IR that I can point out the 
window at night and catch wildlife.

>> 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 :-).

Yes.

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

It has a decent lens. 67mm or something. White balance, manual 
focus/aperature/exposure, flash shoe, etc etc. Basically most of the 
features of an SLR except for changing the lens and actually being an SLR. 
Very robust, too. I've been using it for years, and the first thing to wear 
out was the springs where you push the memory chips in and such.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> 
> I would have thought they wouldn't put in moving parts and extra filters
> if it wasn't actually needed. 

That certainly sounds true. OTOH eg. I have a cheap video camera module,
which shows infrared visibly on the screen it's connected to (not too
clear, though). And you know Sony's Nightshot -feature on videocameras?
If there are moving parts for it to work, they certainly are really
quiet - I've used the feature couple of times, never heard anything from
the camera.

> For one thing, you have to block the
> visible light from getting to the sensor, yes?

I dunno, the sensor can pick up the whole visible spectrum and I believe
the software can just pick eg. blue colors from there. Why would IR be
diffent? I'm sure blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
photos, I was thinking aligning the photo.

> That's my point. If you're not looking at an LCD, but instead you're
> looking out the lens, you won't be able to see the IR that you're
> photographing.

Yes. Somehow I guided to thinking that having the optical vf doesn't
prevent you having the LCD vf.

> With the Sony, you can either take the picture in IR (which is quick,
> espeically if you put on an IR flash), or you can line up the photo
> using IR and then take a flash photo. I don't think it takes that long
> an exposure, as I have a movie camera that will also film in IR that I
> can point out the window at night and catch wildlife.

Ah yes, I got stuck with aligning the image, not shooting IR. Yes, I'm
fairly certain that blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
IR-photo.


> It has a decent lens. 67mm or something. White balance, manual
> focus/aperature/exposure, flash shoe, etc etc. Basically most of the
> features of an SLR except for changing the lens and actually being an
> SLR. Very robust, too. I've been using it for years, and the first thing
> to wear out was the springs where you push the memory chips in and such.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/
> 

Yes, half-SLR=SL. Seems that the biggest fault is unchangeable optics.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> And you know Sony's Nightshot -feature on videocameras?

That's a good point; you're right. I wonder how they're working it.

> I dunno, the sensor can pick up the whole visible spectrum and I believe
> the software can just pick eg. blue colors from there. Why would IR be
> diffent?

Dunno. The same reason red and blue and green get different pixels. 
Otherwise you'd wind up with white. Maybe the video camera just doesn't 
filter out IR when normally photographing? I dunno.

> Yes. Somehow I guided to thinking that having the optical vf doesn't
> prevent you having the LCD vf.

I think you can't have both at once, no. :-)

> Ah yes, I got stuck with aligning the image, not shooting IR. Yes, I'm
> fairly certain that blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
> IR-photo.

It has both modes. Basically, take the IR picture, or take a flash picture. 
I've used both, but neither frequently of course.

> Yes, half-SLR=SL. Seems that the biggest fault is unchangeable optics.

Basically, yes. For vacation photos instead of pro photos, it works nicely. 
The bottom isn't quite flat, which makes it a little annoying to try to take 
impromptu tripod pictures, but otherwise it's really nice.

Well, we have a couple of trips coming up. I can put up pictures with the 
Sony, the D90, and scanned from the Nikon N60 film camera we used to use, if 
people want to compare.

-- 
   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

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Dunno. The same reason red and blue and green get different pixels.
> Otherwise you'd wind up with white. Maybe the video camera just doesn't
> filter out IR when normally photographing? I dunno.

Possibly. My head doesn't work right now, I'm too exhausted to think :-).

> I think you can't have both at once, no. :-)

On that I think we agree :-).

> It has both modes. Basically, take the IR picture, or take a flash
> picture. I've used both, but neither frequently of course.

I figured that out, yes. I ment that the IR-part for aligning the photo
doesn't need to be HQ, but when shooting IR-photo, it at least certainly
pumps the quality up, compared to software filtering (if it even works:).

> Well, we have a couple of trips coming up. I can put up pictures with
> the Sony, the D90, and scanned from the Nikon N60 film camera we used to
> use, if people want to compare.

Naah, at least I don't need them, but out of curiosity, if you could
deliver one IR-shot from Sony to be seen, I'd appreciate.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)

I will have to try this...

http://zuzutop.com/2009/06/bursting-soap-bubbles-amazing-pictures/

-- 
   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