nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:59:00 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>>Unless you're one of those teenagers who takes pictures solely for the
    >>>purpose of looking at them briefly on the LCD screen and then discarding
    >>>them, the LCD screen is never the final output device. Typically the
    >>>image will be displayed, projected, or printed on a very different
    >>>device later, and it may well look very different in consequence.
    >>and in this respect, how does this differ to the image in an SLR view
    >>finder?
    >The LCD is better as a guide to the final photos exposure, I
    >suspect for focus and clarity, the direct lens view is better. Of
    >course a digital should have both if any good, it seems.

It varies depending on make and model.
For example on my Nikon camera, for reason known only to Nikon I can
adjust the colour bias etc. of the view finder image but not the
colour bias of the final image in the camera memory. As somebody else
mentioned the LCD image on some cameras is not bright enough in bright
sunlight. I normally use the optical view finder which gives an SLR
image. I only use the LCD for a quick look at the result when I have
doubts.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:59:06 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Go Fig
    >>I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    >>valuable in these estimating situations.
    >I agree, and useless in very bright situations?

on some makes/models, yes.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:59:07 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>and taking photos in low light situations with an SLR using film have
    >>never deceived you?
    >>Hint: The eyes sensitivity is different to a film sensitivity.
    >that's why we meter, who uses the eye to measure exposure? I have
    >done so using experience of the film, but generally our eyes,
    >having automatic exposure control are pretty useless.

He claimed to see the same through his SLR as the image the camera
stores.
Even in bright light there is no guarantee that colours seen through
an SLR are the same as on the film storage media.
--
Martin

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to Go Fig
    >
    > >I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    > >valuable in these estimating situations.
    >
    > I agree, and useless in very bright situations?

It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
me into a creative mental 'zone'.

jay
Sat Nov 27, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Frank F. Matthews

The Reids wrote:
    > Following up to Frank F. Matthews
    >
    >
    >>>so how does a digital simultaneously expose the focused image for
    >>>your eye and for the sensors at the same time without a mirror?
    >
    >
    >>By showing you what the sensors are sensing in your viewfinder.
    >
    >
    > via a mirror?

Why use a mirror and, I suppose, a new set of sensors to replicate
information that is already available?

Frank F. Matthews

Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Frank F. Matthews writes:
    >
    >
    >>Why not?
    >
    >
    > Unless you're one of those teenagers who takes pictures solely for the
    > purpose of looking at them briefly on the LCD screen and then discarding
    > them, the LCD screen is never the final output device. Typically the
    > image will be displayed, projected, or printed on a very different
    > device later, and it may well look very different in consequence.
    >



In that sense no view will be the final result so why bother with a view?

The digital display is far more realistic than any other I've seen.

Frank F. Matthews

Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Following up to Go Fig
    >>>I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    >>>valuable in these estimating situations.
    >>I agree, and useless in very bright situations?
    >
    >
    > It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    > inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    > 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    > me into a creative mental 'zone'.
    >
    > jay
    > Sat Nov 27, 2004
    > mailto:[email protected]




I have to wonder what you want. My display shows among other
information, speed, lens opening, zoom status, flash mode, focus mode,
battery status, storage mode, exposures remaining, & control mode.

The viewfinder works fine.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Frank F. Matthews
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig wrote:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, The Reids
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Following up to Go Fig
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>I like low-light/nite photography, the LCD preview is incredibly
    > >>>valuable in these estimating situations.
    > >>
    > >>I agree, and useless in very bright situations?
    > >
    > >
    > > It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    > > inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    > > 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    > > me into a creative mental 'zone'.
    > >
    > > jay
    > > Sat Nov 27, 2004
    > > mailto:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I have to wonder what you want. My display

I'm NOT talking about a LCD display, so wonder not.


jay
Sat Nov 27, 2004
mailto:[email protected]




    > shows among other
    > information, speed, lens opening, zoom status, flash mode, focus mode,
    > battery status, storage mode, exposures remaining, & control mode.
    >
    > The viewfinder works fine.



    >
    >
    >
    >

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > I suppose that's good news :-)

Not for me.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

The Reids writes:

    > via a mirror?

Yes.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > Look through your view finder and then look at the object directly.
    > If you can't see a difference then have your eyes tested.

Tested for what?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Go Fig writes:

    > There is quite a bit of available light for that shot, could probably
    > be shot at 1/15 and 5.6 E-6 200.

As I recall, it was shot at about f/5.6 for 8 seconds at ISO 100.

    > There is so much natural light its
    > hard to tell if its c-41 or E-6.

The only natural light is the light of dusk behind the cathedral. It
was Provia 100F by the way.

    > Nice shot!

Thanks.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > and the 95% of your shots that you discard?

I only took one shot, and I did not discard it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > and taking photos in low light situations with an SLR using film have
    > never deceived you?

No.

    > Hint: The eyes sensitivity is different to a film sensitivity.

I don't use eyes. I use exposure meters.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > and in this respect, how does this differ to the image in an SLR view
    > finder?

The SLR shows what's actually there.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.