Digital SLR LCD question

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the olympus dslr is a dslr. but id stick with canon or nikon and leave olympus for the little boys

for the lenses primarily. and canon's sensor technology is pretty much at the top of the game.

Pretty much all sub-$1,000 cameras are equal. There are pros and cons to each and it's essentially impossible to buy one that's a "dud".

ZV

i disagree.

for example, the fuji s3 and the canon 20d/30d series.

ok they arent sub 1,000 but they are darn close.

try shooting one then the other. i used the fuji for many hours, and it had a very painfully slow processor. took forever to do anything when it came to reviewing and/or deleting shots. it was obscenely slow. plus it was not even close to the canon ergonomically.

i dont know about the olympus, maybe some people who have used the olympus and a nikon or canon can comment on differences.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the olympus dslr is a dslr. but id stick with canon or nikon and leave olympus for the little boys

for the lenses primarily. and canon's sensor technology is pretty much at the top of the game.

Pretty much all sub-$1,000 cameras are equal. There are pros and cons to each and it's essentially impossible to buy one that's a "dud".

ZV

i disagree.

for example, the fuji s3 and the canon 20d/30d series.

ok they arent sub 1,000 but they are darn close.

try shooting one then the other. i used the fuji for many hours, and it had a very painfully slow processor. took forever to do anything when it came to reviewing and/or deleting shots. it was obscenely slow. plus it was not even close to the canon ergonomically.

i dont know about the olympus, maybe some people who have used the olympus and a nikon or canon can comment on differences.

I've used an Olympus E-300 and a Nikon D50, as well as an older Fuji S1 Pro.

I won't compare the S1 Pro because even the most budget DSLR produces better results due to old technology, but the ergonomics are superb and the images were worthy.

The D50 has better high ISO performance and faster focusing, but the out of camera results suck, RAW or JPEG. Don't even dream about using auto ISO unless you like cold images. The viewfinder sizes are about the same, the Olympus viewfinder is a bit taller, but the D50 viewfinder is a bit wider. The D50 is a more attractive camera, but the E-300 feels better in my hand. Sure Olympus cameras have shortcomings, but the lenses are amazing. I currently have a 14-54mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/2. The 50mm f/2 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, regardless of make. The D50 would make a nice budget action/sports camera.

I will add more to this post once I have more time.

I am looking forward to the new Olympus pro body, and will probably buy one if it is in the sub $2,000 price range.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

If you're shooting into the sun, you don't want to look at the sun.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the olympus dslr is a dslr. but id stick with canon or nikon and leave olympus for the little boys

for the lenses primarily. and canon's sensor technology is pretty much at the top of the game.

Pretty much all sub-$1,000 cameras are equal. There are pros and cons to each and it's essentially impossible to buy one that's a "dud".

ZV

i disagree.

for example, the fuji s3 and the canon 20d/30d series.

ok they arent sub 1,000 but they are darn close.

try shooting one then the other. i used the fuji for many hours, and it had a very painfully slow processor. took forever to do anything when it came to reviewing and/or deleting shots. it was obscenely slow. plus it was not even close to the canon ergonomically.

i dont know about the olympus, maybe some people who have used the olympus and a nikon or canon can comment on differences.

I've used an Olympus E-300 and a Nikon D50, as well as an older Fuji S1 Pro.

I won't compare the S1 Pro because even the most budget DSLR produces better results due to old technology, but the ergonomics are superb and the images were worthy.

The D50 has better high ISO performance and faster focusing, but the out of camera results suck, RAW or JPEG. Don't even dream about using auto ISO unless you like cold images. The viewfinder sizes are about the same, the Olympus viewfinder is a bit taller, but the D50 viewfinder is a bit wider. The D50 is a more attractive camera, but the E-300 feels better in my hand. Sure Olympus cameras have shortcomings, but the lenses are amazing. I currently have a 14-54mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/2. The 50mm f/2 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, regardless of make. The D50 would make a nice budget action/sports camera.

I will add more to this post once I have more time.

I am looking forward to the new Olympus pro body, and will probably buy one if it is in the sub $2,000 price range.

i had no complaints with the fuji's image quality. but the processor was like a snail. that is a dealbreaker to me.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

its not if you cant get your face to the viewfinder for when you hold the camera away from your body to get a better angle, or for some gymnastic like macro shooting, etc....

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
So how do the DSLR cameras that provide previews on the LCD work? This seems counter-intuitive to the whole SLR principle.

the E-330 had two modes, one using a small sensor that had light split from the prism, and one using the main sensor with the mirror locked up. because the light was split from the prism into the sensor, rather than to your eye, the optical viewfinder was a bit dim. however, because the autofocus sensors were in the light path when using that side-sensor, it could do autofocus in that mode. not sure if it could autofocus in the other mode.

the others that provide live preview lock up the mirror and use the main sensor for preview. at half press of the shutter, the mirror flips down, the camera does AF, and then the mirror flips back up. during that time, the preview is blacked out.

and you can turn live preview off, of course.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

its not if you cant get your face to the viewfinder for when you hold the camera away from your body to get a better angle, or for some gymnastic like macro shooting, etc....

For macro shooting I wouldn't trust an LCD even if it had 100x magnification.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

its not if you cant get your face to the viewfinder for when you hold the camera away from your body to get a better angle, or for some gymnastic like macro shooting, etc....

For macro shooting I wouldn't trust an LCD even if it had 100x magnification.

That's one of the dumbest close-minded things I've ever heard.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

its not if you cant get your face to the viewfinder for when you hold the camera away from your body to get a better angle, or for some gymnastic like macro shooting, etc....

For macro shooting I wouldn't trust an LCD even if it had 100x magnification.

That's one of the dumbest close-minded things I've ever heard.

Ok, you try and do some insect macro while having to fiddle around with an LCD and report back to me.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
only the newest Canon DSLR does it.

Olympus has had it in their camera for almost 2 years.

yep tho IIRC its not a true DSLR

anyway i cant understand why you woudl want to use teh LCD to shoot, the viewfinder is always gonna be more accurate,

its not if you cant get your face to the viewfinder for when you hold the camera away from your body to get a better angle, or for some gymnastic like macro shooting, etc....

For macro shooting I wouldn't trust an LCD even if it had 100x magnification.

That's one of the dumbest close-minded things I've ever heard.

Ok, you try and do some insect macro while having to fiddle around with an LCD and report back to me.

Fiddle with an LCD? You roll a wheel and it zooms in and out.

I've messed around with an E-330. The live view really is something. It's 100x better than an LCD on a P&S. If it wasn't anything special, why did your beloved Canon try to implement it?

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Fiddle with an LCD? You roll a wheel and it zooms in and out.

I've messed around with an E-330. The live view really is something. It's 100x better than an LCD on a P&S. If it wasn't anything special, why did your beloved Canon try to implement it?

Unless the LCD screen has the same pixel density as the human eye, it will never be as accurate as a viewfinder without having to zoom in and out. Zooming in and out is fine, but when you're chasing down bugs or shooting birds in flight, that's just something you don't have the luxury of doing. Canon did implement live-preview LCD on the latest 1D, which is nice and I'm sure it can be useful for many things, but macro is something I wouldn't use the LCD for unless I'm shooting a static subject.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Fiddle with an LCD? You roll a wheel and it zooms in and out.

I've messed around with an E-330. The live view really is something. It's 100x better than an LCD on a P&S. If it wasn't anything special, why did your beloved Canon try to implement it?

Unless the LCD screen has the same pixel density as the human eye, it will never be as accurate as a viewfinder without having to zoom in and out. Zooming in and out is fine, but when you're chasing down bugs or shooting birds in flight, that's just something you don't have the luxury of doing. Canon did implement live-preview LCD on the latest 1D, which is nice and I'm sure it can be useful for many things, but macro is something I wouldn't use the LCD for unless I'm shooting a static subject.

A problem I have is that the viewfinder is way too small and I can't see how the picture will come out on it. I prefer the LCD, because I can see it.

Also, it's much easier to tell if the picture's in focus by using the LCD. I wear glasses and can't get my eye that close to the viewfinder. It's nearly useless to me.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Fiddle with an LCD? You roll a wheel and it zooms in and out.

I've messed around with an E-330. The live view really is something. It's 100x better than an LCD on a P&S. If it wasn't anything special, why did your beloved Canon try to implement it?

Unless the LCD screen has the same pixel density as the human eye, it will never be as accurate as a viewfinder without having to zoom in and out. Zooming in and out is fine, but when you're chasing down bugs or shooting birds in flight, that's just something you don't have the luxury of doing. Canon did implement live-preview LCD on the latest 1D, which is nice and I'm sure it can be useful for many things, but macro is something I wouldn't use the LCD for unless I'm shooting a static subject.

So have you ever tried a live view on a DSLR? I'm not saying that live view is the end of the optical viewfinder, but please don't be so close minded about it. A particular food may be the best tasting thing you've ever had, but if you don't taste it, you'd never know.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Fiddle with an LCD? You roll a wheel and it zooms in and out.

I've messed around with an E-330. The live view really is something. It's 100x better than an LCD on a P&S. If it wasn't anything special, why did your beloved Canon try to implement it?

Unless the LCD screen has the same pixel density as the human eye, it will never be as accurate as a viewfinder without having to zoom in and out. Zooming in and out is fine, but when you're chasing down bugs or shooting birds in flight, that's just something you don't have the luxury of doing. Canon did implement live-preview LCD on the latest 1D, which is nice and I'm sure it can be useful for many things, but macro is something I wouldn't use the LCD for unless I'm shooting a static subject.

So have you ever tried a live view on a DSLR? I'm not saying that live view is the end of the optical viewfinder, but please don't be so close minded about it. A particular food may be the best tasting thing you've ever had, but if you don't taste it, you'd never know.

I'm not being close-minded about it. Yes, I have tried a live-preview LCD. And yes, I am quite sure that I will not be using today's line of live-preview LCD's to shoot macro. Until the LCD can read my mind, zoom where I want it to zoom, and constantly change to how my own eyes are focusing, it is just too slow. A live-preview LCD would be helpful mostly with landscape shots IMO, where angles can get quite taxing and I have the time to frame through the LCD without having to worry about focus. But for most of the work I do, I see no real benefits to a live-preview LCD.

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

no Image Stabilization. that costs money.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

yes, but it's many smaller pieces of glass overall. they're selling a 35-100, not a 70-200. i know i'm not the only one who thinks olympus' glass costs (at least for pro-grade stuff) are somewhat ridiculous.

 

[DeMeo]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
So how do the DSLR cameras that provide previews on the LCD work? This seems counter-intuitive to the whole SLR principle.

to achieve the preview shot on the LCD screen, they add a second image sensor in the viewfinder path. This would obviously increase the price rather dramatically, so I believe they (at least Olympus) use a smaller/cheaper image sensor for th epreview window.

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

no Image Stabilization. that costs money.

What do you mean?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

yes, but it's many smaller pieces of glass overall. they're selling a 35-100, not a 70-200. i know i'm not the only one who thinks olympus' glass costs (at least for pro-grade stuff) are somewhat ridiculous.

Show me another f/2 zoom. Hopefully the new E-Pro camera with the 35-100mm f/2 will prove to be the ultimate indoor sports combination.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

no Image Stabilization. that costs money.

What do you mean?

you cant just compare the one stop of difference between those two lenses. the olympus has no Image Stabilization, the canon does, and taht costs money. canon has a very good 3stop+ IS with both a regular and panning feature.

 

[Reggae4k]

The Canon 20Da offers live view through LCD. Its also a special DLSR designed for astrophotography.

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: ElFenix

now, if only olympus didn't price their lenses so high. an olympus 35-100 f/2.0 costs $500 more than the canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS and nikon's 70-200 f/2.8D VR. that's pretty ridiculous.

I don't mean to pick a fight, but for that $500 you are getting a full stop more, in a constant aperture telezoom lens. That makes it the only constant f2 telezoom in existence, AFAIK. That's worth $500. Look at the difference in price to get from the f4 to f2.8 versions of the 70-200. Or worse yet, to get from an 85/1.8 to the 85/1.2 .

no Image Stabilization. that costs money.

What do you mean?

you cant just compare the one stop of difference between those two lenses. the olympus has no Image Stabilization, the canon does, and taht costs money. canon has a very good 3stop+ IS with both a regular and panning feature.

Canon 70-200 f4 NON IS
Canon 70-200 f2.8 NON IS

$500 difference. NO IS in either lens. One stop gained.

Canon 85 f1.8
Canon 85 f1.2

$1450 difference, to gain one stop, and no IS. Of course you also move up into L status.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Show me another f/2 zoom. Hopefully the new E-Pro camera with the 35-100mm f/2 will prove to be the ultimate indoor sports combination.

you'd have to pry everyone away from their white bazookas.

no, there aren't any other f/2 zooms (at least for SLRs, sony F707 came close, and zeiss jena made one a long time ago). there are few enough f/2 primes through that range (canon doesn't currently have any f/2 primes longer than 135). (basically for the same reason that MF lenses are 'slow' in comparison to 35mm lenses). if canon were to make a 70-200 f/2L it'd probably cost what the olympus does. of course, the canon would have much more glass in it because it has to cast a bigger image circle (though i suspect that the e-series lenses cast a bigger than necessary image circle) and is somewhat justified because of it. the olympus pretty much has to cost more because olympus can't match the economies of scale that canikon have.


ok, i just looked up the specs of the 35-100 f/2, and how they managed to make what should be a comparatively compact lens larger, heavier, and have more lenses than the 70-200 f/2.8L is beyond me, unless they really are designing lenses to have a much larger image circle than necessary to make the edge sharpness very good. that'll make it cost more.

unfortunately i'd have to stick one on a contax G2 or a leica to find out and i seriously doubt someone will make an adapter.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Anubis
you HAVE to use the viewfinder there is no active LCD because there is a big mirror in the way on DSLRs

dont the new olympus 4/3's systems allow for this? they use an extra set of mirrors one to bounce the light to the view finder, and another to route to some kind of live preview system.

cant see the point of it too much myself, SLR's can be quite weighty and having it braced to your body by holding it up to your eye helps greatly.