40D enters, stage left

[dug777]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
I'm just glad that live view LCD's are finally starting the become standard on mid to high range Digital SLR's! Gee... That only took about five years longer than it should have!

Just out of interest, why do you want live view so dreadfully?

That's one of the things i love about a SLR, being able to shoot without peering at a bloody LCD screen I also can't see how you'd ensure it had focussed on exactly what you wanted...

I could be missing something (and probably am ), but it at least appears that all it'll do is turn you into yet another drooling idiot squinting into a minature LCD screen rather than actually looking at what you're photographing, with your own eyes, through the viewfinder, at infinitely higher 'resolution' than any small LCD is capable of, with real life colours...

The live view is just an additional place where you can preview your shot. Live view is only on the rear LCD, so you've still got the excellent optical viewfinder, but if you're at a weird angle where it's hard to shoot through the viewfinder, you can get your preview from the rear LCD.

I've had this happen in a number of instances, such as when I need some extra height and have to raise my camera above my head. Obviously I can't look through the viewfinder and I'm forced to guess at what the camera's pointing at. With live view I can look up at the LCD and compose my shot. The same goes for shooting from the hip where you don't want to make it obvious that you're shooting something by bringing the camera up to your face. Of if you're shooting something at a really low angle and don't want to lay on the ground in mud or whatnot.

Of course IMO live view should not be used for 100% of shooting, only for those instances where it's necessary and you're willing to take a hit on color accuracy, resolution, and pinpoint focusing.

That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: dug777
That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

heh, I know what you mean, I have the same odd feeling. And I'm not sure what to think. It seems odd to hold an SLR up w/o looking at the viewfinder, but if done right, it could make manual focusing a whole lot easier (in the future, when we have higher res LCD's). But it still feels weird to me, haha.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
I'm just glad that live view LCD's are finally starting the become standard on mid to high range Digital SLR's! Gee... That only took about five years longer than it should have!

Just out of interest, why do you want live view so dreadfully?

That's one of the things i love about a SLR, being able to shoot without peering at a bloody LCD screen I also can't see how you'd ensure it had focussed on exactly what you wanted...

I could be missing something (and probably am ), but it at least appears that all it'll do is turn you into yet another drooling idiot squinting into a minature LCD screen rather than actually looking at what you're photographing, with your own eyes, through the viewfinder, at infinitely higher 'resolution' than any small LCD is capable of, with real life colours...

The live view is just an additional place where you can preview your shot. Live view is only on the rear LCD, so you've still got the excellent optical viewfinder, but if you're at a weird angle where it's hard to shoot through the viewfinder, you can get your preview from the rear LCD.

I've had this happen in a number of instances, such as when I need some extra height and have to raise my camera above my head. Obviously I can't look through the viewfinder and I'm forced to guess at what the camera's pointing at. With live view I can look up at the LCD and compose my shot. The same goes for shooting from the hip where you don't want to make it obvious that you're shooting something by bringing the camera up to your face. Of if you're shooting something at a really low angle and don't want to lay on the ground in mud or whatnot.

Of course IMO live view should not be used for 100% of shooting, only for those instances where it's necessary and you're willing to take a hit on color accuracy, resolution, and pinpoint focusing.

That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

Ehhhh.... I think the chances of such a thing would be pretty low, since an SLR by design and by definition is a camera that enables light to enter the lens, bounce off the mirror, through a prism, and into the viewfinder. To have an electronic viewfinder would mean the camera wouldn't be an SLR anymore, since there would be no use for the prism and the mirror system. If this became the case for all SLRs, it'd effectively be the death of all SLRs.

There are also physical limitations to this. One of the big reasons live view has been slow in coming is because large sensors produce a lot of heat and have increasing non-linear power requirements as they become activated for longer periods of time. Having both an electronic viewfinder in addition to an LCD preview would necessitate a way to combat this heat and power requirement. The Canon's Live View has duration limitations as well as ambient temperature limitations. And since battery technology is historically very slow in developing compared to circuit technology, higher power drains will result in decreased runtime, something the SLR crowd does not want. There is no magic "wait 6 months for battery capacity to double" bullet here.

I can certainly see a large prosumer camera like a Panasonic Lumix FZ-something grow into something with detachable lenses, but getting rid of the optical viewfinder altogether in an SLR is kinda far.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: dug777
That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

heh, I know what you mean, I have the same odd feeling. And I'm not sure what to think. It seems odd to hold an SLR up w/o looking at the viewfinder, but if done right, it could make manual focusing a whole lot easier (in the future, when we have higher res LCD's). But it still feels weird to me, haha.

I think it's about frickin' time

I could also do with a video mode on SLRs. Think of the awesome control you'd have with DOF and stuff, not to mention the usefulness for travelers.

I remember saying that manufacturors should do Live View and possibly look into video four years ago on the DPreview forums. My replies were all "SLRs have a mirror newb! OMG learn how an SLR operates before posting something that is stupid lol."

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
I'm just glad that live view LCD's are finally starting the become standard on mid to high range Digital SLR's! Gee... That only took about five years longer than it should have!

Just out of interest, why do you want live view so dreadfully?

That's one of the things i love about a SLR, being able to shoot without peering at a bloody LCD screen I also can't see how you'd ensure it had focussed on exactly what you wanted...

I could be missing something (and probably am ), but it at least appears that all it'll do is turn you into yet another drooling idiot squinting into a minature LCD screen rather than actually looking at what you're photographing, with your own eyes, through the viewfinder, at infinitely higher 'resolution' than any small LCD is capable of, with real life colours...

The live view is just an additional place where you can preview your shot. Live view is only on the rear LCD, so you've still got the excellent optical viewfinder, but if you're at a weird angle where it's hard to shoot through the viewfinder, you can get your preview from the rear LCD.

I've had this happen in a number of instances, such as when I need some extra height and have to raise my camera above my head. Obviously I can't look through the viewfinder and I'm forced to guess at what the camera's pointing at. With live view I can look up at the LCD and compose my shot. The same goes for shooting from the hip where you don't want to make it obvious that you're shooting something by bringing the camera up to your face. Of if you're shooting something at a really low angle and don't want to lay on the ground in mud or whatnot.

Of course IMO live view should not be used for 100% of shooting, only for those instances where it's necessary and you're willing to take a hit on color accuracy, resolution, and pinpoint focusing.

That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

Ehhhh.... I think the chances of such a thing would be pretty low, since an SLR by design and by definition is a camera that enables light to enter the lens, bounce off the mirror, through a prism, and into the viewfinder. To have an electronic viewfinder would mean the camera wouldn't be an SLR anymore, since there would be no use for the prism and the mirror system. If this became the case for all SLRs, it'd effectively be the death of all SLRs.

There are also physical limitations to this. One of the big reasons live view has been slow in coming is because large sensors produce a lot of heat and have increasing non-linear power requirements as they become activated for longer periods of time. Having both an electronic viewfinder in addition to an LCD preview would necessitate a way to combat this heat and power requirement. The Canon's Live View has duration limitations as well as ambient temperature limitations. And since battery technology is historically very slow in developing compared to circuit technology, higher power drains will result in decreased runtime, something the SLR crowd does not want. There is no magic "wait 6 months for battery capacity to double" bullet here.

I can certainly see a large prosumer camera like a Panasonic Lumix FZ-something grow into something with detachable lenses, but getting rid of the optical viewfinder altogether in an SLR is kinda far.

It's a good thing that's not what i said




EDIT: FWIW i agree with everything you say, but it's not directed at something i actually said

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dug777

It's a good thing that's not what i said

EDIT: FWIW i agree with everything you say, but it's not directed at something i actually said

Wah? Bunny is confused. Your reply is directed more specifically towards the lower end DSLRs, right? How companies would want to keep costs down in this group by just replacing the expensive mirror and prism systems with an electronic viewfinder?

Like I said, it's kinda far, but I guess it's still possible. The camera would still no longer be an SLR though. It would be like any other prosumer P&S on the market, only with a larger sensor and a swappable lens.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dug777

That makes sense in those very limited circumstances, but the cynic in me fears that this is the first nail in the coffin for decent DSLR viewfinders (at the more affordable end of the range anyway). I'm wouldn't be surprised if LCDs are, or soon will be, cheaper than a decent pentaprism, and who's going to look through a viewfinder when they can see it on the back of the camera?

I'm being a tad melodramatic here, but my experience is that given the choice between a 'old technology that works perfectly', and 'new, shiny technology that goes bleep! (but is inferior)' options, people almost invariably jump for the latter

the viewfinder is better on this camera than it's predecessor. the viewfinder on the xti already sucks. so no worries.


and live view with magnification is awesome for macro photography.


an articulated LCD would be awesome, but that'd mean a smaller LCD or a bigger body.

 

[foghorn67]

Remember LCD's suck up power like nothing else.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Hi y'all!

Posting from Naxos, Greece today.

I am liking the new specs of the 40D. If reviews from both users (beta testers) and pro sites are positive, I think it will replace my 20D sometime in the next 6-8 months or so.

I am only concerned about the reliability of the all new AF system as well as pixel density/high ISO noise.

If so, why don't you go for 5D. Even better would be the next generation of 5D that's belived to be out by the mid next year.

cause it'll probably cost more than he wants to spend

Exactly! $1299 is an easy pill to swallow compared to $3-4k for a 6D. And plus, I am liking the extra reach APS-C provides with my 70-200 f4L IS.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Exactly! $1299 is an easy pill to swallow compared to $3-4k for a 6D. And plus, I am liking the extra reach APS-C provides with my 70-200 f4L IS.

heh, I wish I could say that. I'm just hoping this pushes the 30D used/new market down down down Ideally I could find one that has a mack warranty on it maybe still... for ~$700... heh. Hey, I can dream.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Remember LCD's suck up power like nothing else.

You can get generic replacement batteries for $10 on most of the Canon cameras. I don't see this as being a big deal.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: foghorn67
Remember LCD's suck up power like nothing else.

You can get generic replacement batteries for $10 on most of the Canon cameras. I don't see this as being a big deal.

But how many batteries do you want to be carrying around? I like the ability to shoot ~1,000 photos on 2 batteries in the grip. I loved Canon's Axxx series, but could never get more than 250 pics on 4 Maha 2,000 mAh AA's.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Jawo

But how many batteries do you want to be carrying around? I like the ability to shoot ~1,000 photos on 2 batteries in the grip. I loved Canon's Axxx series, but could never get more than 250 pics on 4 Maha 2,000 mAh AA's.

you don't have to use the LCD.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

It's a good thing that's not what i said

EDIT: FWIW i agree with everything you say, but it's not directed at something i actually said

Wah? Bunny is confused. Your reply is directed more specifically towards the lower end DSLRs, right? How companies would want to keep costs down in this group by just replacing the expensive mirror and prism systems with an electronic viewfinder?

I was merely suggesting that they might put far less effort into designing a decent viewfinder if they think everyone will use live view. I don't think they're quite insane enough to get rid of it altogether

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dug777

I was merely suggesting that they might put far less effort into designing a decent viewfinder if they think everyone will use live view. I don't think they're quite insane enough to get rid of it altogether

they've been making viewfinders for half a century now. i don't think there is much effort involved these days.

 

[AndrewR]

Canon did a good job, pending user reviews of course. I was impressed when I read the spec list and pleasantly surprised when I saw the price.

It's not impressive enough for me to switch, until Canon decides that in-body image stabilization is "worthy" of their line. I rely on it too much these days!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's not impressive enough for me to switch, until Canon decides that in-body image stabilization is "worthy" of their line. I rely on it too much these days!

with the new cheap in-lens IS modules i doubt that'll happen for a long time. sony will need to make big marketshare strides against canikon before they consider it. as it is, the makes other than canikon were actually losing marketshare. (the new olympii may have reversed that trend, however)

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's not impressive enough for me to switch, until Canon decides that in-body image stabilization is "worthy" of their line. I rely on it too much these days!

with the new cheap in-lens IS modules i doubt that'll happen for a long time. sony will need to make big marketshare strides against canikon before they consider it. as it is, the makes other than canikon were actually losing marketshare. (the new olympii may have reversed that trend, however)

Or if nikon decides to throw it into it's D80 replacement (or more likely, that replacement's replacement).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's not impressive enough for me to switch, until Canon decides that in-body image stabilization is "worthy" of their line. I rely on it too much these days!

with the new cheap in-lens IS modules i doubt that'll happen for a long time. sony will need to make big marketshare strides against canikon before they consider it. as it is, the makes other than canikon were actually losing marketshare. (the new olympii may have reversed that trend, however)

Or if nikon decides to throw it into it's D80 replacement (or more likely, that replacement's replacement).

"they" refers to both canon and nikon, which i lump together as "canikon." a single corporation is singluar in US english. ("Ford is lame, boeing is great.")

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: AndrewR
It's not impressive enough for me to switch, until Canon decides that in-body image stabilization is "worthy" of their line. I rely on it too much these days!

with the new cheap in-lens IS modules i doubt that'll happen for a long time. sony will need to make big marketshare strides against canikon before they consider it. as it is, the makes other than canikon were actually losing marketshare. (the new olympii may have reversed that trend, however)

With cameras out now with both in-lens and in-body stabilization, that's likely the way ahead even for Canon and Nikon since they won't have to abandon their money-making lenses. I cringe to think how much Sony would price a lens with stabilization, however.

It's likely the new Sony bodies will increase their marketshare a fair amount since right now the "Alpha system" is only an entry-level body. The success of the new advanced amateur Alpha will be strongly based on pricing though.

 

[ElFenix]

i wonder if it'd be possible for canon to quickly add contrast detection AF to the 40D (ala D300) with a firmware update? if the digic 3 performs those functions for compact cameras already, the necessary parts may be in the camera already.



over the last couple of days, i bet i've typed 300D 10 times and D40 20 times when i've meant other cameras