Ditch the LCD for EVIL cameras
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: It's official! Sony couldn't fix the NEX lens problem.
Next: Two Nikon lenses, 70-200mm/16-85mm used at opposite extremes
From: Rich on 6 Jun 2010 13:59 DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:c1b5c8da-5dd2-42c6-a6da- 5b39d3407a40(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: > On 5 June, 21:36, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Put all the money and effort into good EVFs. �No one needs an LCD >> anyway. > > I do. I look to see what the shot I just took looks like. > Taking pictures of kids is not easy, I take a burst and delete the > ones that are bad, I like to delete them on the camera > If not happy with any I shoot again. That's fine. I merely pointed out that no one needs and LCD (your editing can be done in the computer) not that they don't have some uses. Personally, I'd prefer the camera makers concentrate on the sensor output and lens quality first and foremost. > Or use Live view with a tripod and magnify the image 10x to help focus > manually. Just not on moving kids!
From: Rich on 6 Jun 2010 14:00 Val Hallah <michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:4e8f465f-448b-44cf- aff7-4961fa2ff350(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com: > On Jun 5, 10:36�pm, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Put all the money and effort into good EVFs. �No one needs an LCD >> anyway. > > howabout 'blue tooth' connection from camera to the HUD on my > glasses.... > Things like that will know doubt appear. I'm still surprised that wireless image transfer from cameras hasn't become the norm.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 6 Jun 2010 23:47 On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:57:03 -0500, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote in >news:hqpm06preqlfle26nmp50i9cpar3ui4cru(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 02:07:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Jun 5, 10:09�pm, Outing Trolls is FUN! <o...(a)trollouters.org> >>>wrote: >>>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 13:36:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA >>>> <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Put all the money and effort into good EVFs. �No one needs an LCD >>>> >anyway. >>>> >>>> The only people who don't need an LCD viewfinder are the >>>> inexperienced or ignorant non-creative snapshooters. Those who would >>>> never have need to: >>>> >>> >>>Only people who actually need an LCD are people who don't know how to >>>expose, or who simply don't trust their own ability to compose a >>>shot. >> >> The only people who advise to never actually need an LCD >> are idiots who have never learned to use one to their advantage > >You must have suffered so during the film era. > No, not at all. Because I didn't realize what I was missing. Reread the previous 21+etc. examples of extremely useful functions for an LCD viewfinder that can't be emulated by using any OVF. Did all those who rode horses before the 1900's "suffer" from not having a climate-controlled automobile to get to town? You might think so. They did not think so. In fact they considered themselves "riding in style", far above the paupers who had no horse. In a lot of ways this is just like your own life. You don't realize what it's like to have a fully functioning brain. You'll never miss what you don't have, have never used, nor ever had access to. Are you suffering for not having a fully functioning brain? No, not at all. The real pisser is that the rest of us have to suffer for your lack of one. If only it were legal to put you out of everyone's misery that you bring to humanity's table.
From: whisky-dave on 7 Jun 2010 08:49 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:2gpp06le9d640i18ihqmvr3rroa45rjnjj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:27:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >>Would that be a head up display display display display? > > At this point I think we're at a single pixel. I wonder if we can split the pixel like we split the atom ;-)
From: C. Werner on 7 Jun 2010 11:25
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:49:28 +0100, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >news:2gpp06le9d640i18ihqmvr3rroa45rjnjj(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:27:05 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: > >>> >>> >>>Would that be a head up display display display display? >> >> At this point I think we're at a single pixel. > >I wonder if we can split the pixel like we split the atom ;-) > The "pixel" is already a compilation of 4 sub-pixel components (in the case of an RGGB Bayer array sensor). Each pixel you see in the final image are comprised of 2 Greenons, 1 Redton, and 1 Blueyon. (Well, actually, many more of each than that, but for simplicity's-sake we'll reduce it to 4.) You can't, per se, accurately split them back up into their original sub-pixel components again but they do exist. The strong and weak photosite forces prevent accurately splitting them again into their original values. You can get approximations of their original sub-pixel components (proving they once existed), but not their original sub-pixel weights. Some surmise that the sub-pixel components further from the central sensor-mass have less weight (less force), and therefore are less likely to stick to their neighbors. They think this is what causes them to fly off into their individual colors at the corners and edges of the sensors. (CA artifacts) It's all very quantumy and beyond the scope of these two paragraphs. |