DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

A rumour but then I have been right twice before

Paul,
Digitial photography has only been with us for a few years. The mirror pentaprism view finder has been with us for 60 or 70 years. The innovation improvement in digital imagary over the past 10 years has been astounding. I would expect that over the next 5 or 10 years, commericially viable and cost effective solutions for an LCD-viewfinder or successor digital viewfinder solutions will be developed. It may be better than the mirror pentaprism. It may give us the capability of a brighter image in low light situations (where the photographer may actually be able to clearly see faces and other details, where through a pentaprism it is too dim).

I have no inside knowledge, I am just trying to let my imagination run wild. We will have to wait and see what the innovators will develop.

Howard
 
Howard,

> Digitial photography has only been with us for a few years.

Hum. Well, as a mom and pop kind of thing, where little Becky has her own P&S disposable digital camera that she got for her 8th birthday, perhaps...but digital photography has been around for some 30+ years...

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

I stand corrected. When did the Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc, begin delivering commercially viable products. I do not remember seeing ads for the these products in the 1970's.

Howard
 
> Austin, > > I stand corrected. When did the Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc, begin > delivering commercially viable products. I do not remember seeing ads > for the these products in the 1970's. > > Howard

Howard,

Your original statement was:

> Digitial photography has only been with us for a few years.

And it makes no mention of Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, etc. delivering commercial products. There are many applications where digital imaging has been commercially available since the 70's, which was what my correction to your statement was pointing out.

Austin
 
Austin,

Excluding our misunderstanding and your clarification when digital began. Did you feel that there is any relevance to my armchair dreaming that someday that the mirror pentaprism on DSLR may be replaced by some sort of LCD or successor product? If not, in five, ten or 20 years, do you feel most of the digital DSLR will still be using mirror pentaprisms?

Howard
 
Austin, don't you realize how the way you are speaking, now again in this interchange with Howard, is inimical to interested and adult conversation? Particularly perhaps in a forum, which depends entirely on the expression of _different_ imaginations by its participants, and has no other substance with which to draw. Not to mention the generativity and creativity that is lost.

I don't mean to speak unpleasantly, and please understand I will have no more to say on the subject. But I do hope that closing off 'incorrectness' can be dropped as a practice, because it will lose all the flavours 'in a soup' which would attract one to be part of a forum like this.

Of course we all exercise judgement - but maybe the better side of this is where a moment of thought is taken, appreciating that others seldom write without something they feel to contribute, encourage, desire, are drawn to understand - and then that each of these can be recognised worthwhile, within a broader insight.

Anyway, seems like what goes into a good picture also, topic here.

Regards.
 
Hi Howard,

> Did you feel that there is any relevance to my armchair > dreaming that someday that the mirror pentaprism on DSLR may be > replaced by some sort of LCD or successor product?

Yes, of course. I've in fact been working on such a thing for many years (around 5). As I mentioned, it works well for autofocus, but not so well for manual focus, as the resolution is simply not there. It's also got real-time update problems, as well as can't be used with traditional full frame sensors, as they have a shutter, and when the shutter is closed, no display. The cameras that have a real-time display use interline sensors, which are far, quality wise, inferior to what is called "full frame" (not to be confused with the sensor size being that of a 35mm film frame).

> If not, in five, > ten or 20 years, do you feel most of the digital DSLR will still be > using mirror pentaprisms?

I think it's a matter of what one is willing to accept. I think the optical pentaprism will be around for some 10 years at least, but you may see some non-optical ones start to come out in 3-5 years.

Regards,

Austin
 
Coming back from my self imposed vacation from the list, I'm sorry to see that my reason for taking a hiatus still exists. Now, before I am misunderstood, I am speaking about the posts made by Austin. I do not know you personally Austin. I'm sorry if this comes across as negativity. However, maybe I can find a way to make this constructive criticism. While you are possibly aware of facts about the digital revolution, your points are made so overbearingly that they squash any comfortable conversation. I believe (and I am guessing this is how some others feel) that when you come across swiftly and pedantically correcting what you perceive to be errors made by other members of this list others are thinking, "wow, I'm not going to open my mouth and share my idea or question, or I'll look like a fool when Austin corrects my errors" I was always taught to speak up if I wanted to know something. However, if I had always had someone correcting my every move and every word, I might have backed into a corner quietly instead of furthering my interests. Would you please consider taking a lighter tone with the members of the list. Whether you like them, or their ideas really doesn't matter, please be kinder. Thank you, Lynn
 
Austin,
As I understand you, the source of the display that is in back of the digital camera is not from the 5mb pixels, 6mb pixels, 11mb pixels sensor in which the digital image is taken, but from a separate interline sensor. At present, the interline sensor has real time update problems, and sharpness issues making it difficult or impossible to manually focus photo's. Until the interline sensor is greatly improved or replaced with another sensor, my arm chair forecast of replacing the mirror pentaprism will not occur.

As far as having no display when shutter is closed no display, doesn't the same thing occur with any SLR, when the shutter is depressed, the mirror swings up out of place the subject can espose either the film or sensor media. Or are you referring to something else?

I am not technical person like you so please explain everything in as simple terms as possible.

Howard
 
Well, I was intrigued by the notion of shutting off the res&ling when resizing in order to get a better print. I'm scanning a wedding that I shot Sunday and am making Epson 2200 prints as I go.

Scanned a 35mm neg., from a Leica M with 35 Lux ASPH. and tried it both ways. Scanner is a Polaroid SprintScan 120 with 4000 dpi. Resized in PS with and without s&ling on. Just set the size on the uns&led version and it came out to 535 dpi. Set the other at the same size only set at 300 dpi with my normal bicubic res&ling and constraint proportions.

Close inspection revealed absolutely no difference in the 2 prints. (???????)
 
Back
Top