|
Post by dee on Nov 16, 2015 16:54:51 GMT -5
It's interesting to note reviews of the Leica Digilux 3 with it's somewhat basic live view which reviewers rather dismissed as a gimmick.
This is in contrast to Sony's early implementation of live view with a CCD sensor requiring the complexity of a second sensor , which actually works rather well Of course the mirror less revolution accelerated the adoption of what was considered a compact camera facility and now everyone is doing it !!
dee
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Nov 17, 2015 15:35:13 GMT -5
Is there any point in having a DSLR of this type? I had a DSLR with live view but using it with LV was slow and clunky. My Sony A6000 is similar size, has a bigger sensor, is mirrorless and has a super EVF. My Nikon DSLR has long gone.
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Nov 18, 2015 16:10:25 GMT -5
Live view is essential when you have an older back (mine, not the camera's) and want to photograph near ground level. It also allows me to control my DSLR through my tablet which is easier than using the camera's own controls.
|
|
|
Post by paulhofseth on Nov 20, 2015 9:42:40 GMT -5
Controlling through a PC is brilliant for digitizing slides with bellows. Functions for enlarging the focus point is also brilliant, but ideally it should only be done in a limited zone so that one can see what is happening in the rest of the frame. Screens and EVFs will compensate for low light and may be rigged to perform lens-correction tricks. Outdoors, screens get washed out and may prove unusable in some situations. Off tripod, screen viewing also leads to the camera being held in a shake-inducing way. EVFs are much better, except for the situations Peltigera mentions.
Screens and EVFs cannot, however match the faithful coulour rendition of an old-fashioned film SLR, or the even more oldfashioned large-format groundglass view.
p.
|
|
|
Post by dee on Nov 22, 2015 19:05:31 GMT -5
I still prefer a DSLR - even the squinty 4/3rds Panasonic L1!
|
|
|
Post by barbarian on Sept 13, 2016 11:21:13 GMT -5
I use live view on my Pentax when I want to take advantage of focus peaking. Otherwise, I like using the viewfinder. Just my preference.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2016 13:53:08 GMT -5
I'm wondering when Canon will get serious about mirrorless cameras. I want a viewfinder (not just a screen on the back) and I want the ability to use all my EF lenses (probably need can adapter) so I don't have to spend a fortune on new optics.
Sony offers models up to 42 megapixels. Maybe someone makes an EF-to-Sony adapter.
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Sept 14, 2016 6:52:37 GMT -5
I'm wondering when Canon will get serious about mirrorless cameras. I want a viewfinder (not just a screen on the back) and I want the ability to use all my EF lenses (probably need can adapter) so I don't have to spend a fortune on new optics. Sony offers models up to 42 megapixels. Maybe someone makes an EF-to-Sony adapter. I have a cheap Canon AF to Sony(NEX)adaptor (Commlite) so that I can use my Canon AF lenses on a Sony A7 camera. So far none of my older Canon AF lenses will autofocus using the adaptor and even the latest 50mm Canon lens auto-focuses only very slowly. I can set the lens aperture though which is the important thing for me. I don't know if the more expensive adaptors are any better.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 14, 2016 11:49:14 GMT -5
Thank you, Rachel. Reviews of Canon to Sony adapters are all mixed, with far too many "works, sort of, sometimes" type comments. I'll wait. SLRs and DSLRs with mirrors have been serving me well for a long time. No real need to change anything, but why retain mechanical parts that were required for film in digital cameras? According to www.usa.canon.com their pitiful offering of two mirrorless cameras, neither of which has a viewfinder, can both use EF and EF-S lenses. Mount Adapter EF-EOS M required. US $189 at B&H in New York. Even the worst review is good, complaining only about the price.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 15, 2016 5:49:44 GMT -5
What exactly is "live view" and how does it differ from sighting through an eye level viewfinder at either a strictly optical device or an electronic image???
I find the tiny screen on the back of my Pentax K5 SLR to be virtually useless and worse than useless when the sun is shining as it is with my point and shoot which, fortunately, has an eye level viewfinder too. I always use their regular viewfinders.
In addition, the steadiness obtained when bracing the camera against my face is lost when looking at the screen held in outstretched arms. I have used some twin lens reflexes without problems as they are well braced against the body.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 15, 2016 10:47:32 GMT -5
On a DSLR, Live View Shooting is using the camera's LCD monitor instead of the viewfinder.
You have use Live View for videos because the camera's mirror will be locked up while shooting. For still pictures you are generally better off using the viewfinder, as you noted. However, in situations where you can't get your eye to the viewfinder, but you can see the back of the camera, Live View can be useful -- camera right on the ground or being held up over your head to shoot over an obstruction for example. Also, for remote shooting, with the camera plugged into and controlled through a computer, the Live View mode is usually required.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 15, 2016 19:29:16 GMT -5
On a DSLR, Live View Shooting is using the camera's LCD monitor instead of the viewfinder. You have use Live View for videos because the camera's mirror will be locked up while shooting. For still pictures you are generally better off using the viewfinder, as you noted. However, in situations where you can't get your eye to the viewfinder, but you can see the back of the camera, Live View can be useful -- camera right on the ground or being held up over your head to shoot over an obstruction for example. Also, for remote shooting, with the camera plugged into and controlled through a computer, the Live View mode is usually required. Thank you, raybar. My very old Exacta VX IIa, circa 1952 or 3, has a removable pentaprism that allows me to do all of the none electronic things that you have mentioned on a well shaded screen even in the brightest sunlight. But I admit that Live View is more versatile - if one can see the view. No videos though. This is my Exacta's little brother, an Exa, wearing an auxiliary shade that augments the cameras built in shade when necessary. The Exacta family always shared each others' accessories. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 15, 2016 20:10:45 GMT -5
Canon made a waist-level finder for their original F-1. It had a flip-up magnifier in it, like is found in many waist-level cameras, but mostly it just shaded the focusing screen a bit and kept dust out if you remembered to close it. I got a free used one when I asked my boss at the camera store what he wanted for it. "Get that stupid thing out of here" he said. He didn't pay much, but was generous with "junk" and on rare occasions would "forget" to bill me for something.
You're in Toronto, Mickey, right? Why don't you drive out to Stratford and check up on She Who Must Be Obeyed. Nice little house, practically on the theatre grounds. She's threatening to move back there if Trump gets elected.
Edit to add - you posted the image while I was typing. The Canon waist-level is similar, but only half or one third as tall.
|
|