Do we still need slr type of camera?

[cantaresg]

In the past, cameras are built with a lens that focus light onto a film and a separate viewfinder for framing the scene. This has a disadvantage as the scene as appeared to the viewfinder and through the lens may be considerably different due to parallax.

The innovation of SLR (single lens reflex) cameras has changed this radically, in the way that the viewfinder is able to view the scene through the same lens that the image will be taken. Due to this, another advantage is that you are able to change the lens and still able to compose the scene without much difficulty. You are not able to do that in a fixed-lens camera.

However, as we enter the digital age, the scene has changed yet again. Now, with ccd/ cmos imaging, live view is possible even on point and shoot cameras, which make viewfinders increasingly redundant especially in smaller PNS cameras. In fact, most camera still holds a viewfinder mostly for decorative purposes, they are almost never used for phototaking.

That said, the later models of DSLR now possess the technology of live viewing as well. Now, with live viewing technology, is this going to make the viewfinders on DSLR redundant in the near future, since we will still be able to frame the scene on the LCD screen? Is the SLR mechanism going to be useless? Is there still a point in keeping the SLR technology, since from now on, a camera can use changeable lenses even without a mirror reflex to redirect the view to the viewfinder?

 

[JediForce4ever]

I don't know...but for me....its pretty clumsy framing my picture with an LCD screen.....it seems...too big...if you get what I mean..

 

[yehosaphat]

Potentially that may happen but if they really do remove the viewfinder in place of live view... then you cannot call it an SLR anymore!

 

[zac08]

Why not? It's easier to shoot with a BIG camera close to the face.... rather than away like a PnS...

 

[cantaresg]

So is stability the only advantage that DSLR has over PNS? Is there any other advantages that an SLR have over the use of live view?

And yes, I suppose when that day comes, the cameras may not be called DSLR anymore?

 

[psychobiologist]

well.. try hand hold a heavier setup away from you with stability if its live view you probably need abt a feet plus away before you can scrutinize properly maybe.

i like my viewfinder, so if they were to do away with it.. maybe can use artificial one? Heh

 

[zac08]

So is stability the only advantage that DSLR has over PNS? Is there any other advantages that an SLR have over the use of live view?

And yes, I suppose when that day comes, the cameras may not be called DSLR anymore?

Nope, the ability to change lenses, operationability with external flashes, etc are all SLR advantages. Live view? Hmmmm.... I guess the only ppl who would love it are the journalists who are shooting over everyone else. Mebbe some of the macro shooters may like this too, but personally, I'd rather lie prone and shoot the subject...

 

[cantaresg]

Technically, it is very possible to do without an SLR, and yet still able to change lens, or operate with external flashes. All I need is a camera body with the same EF/AF mounting as the current SLRs do, do away with the mirror flipping and replace it with the CMOS sensor for imaging and live viewing. The interchangeablity of lenses, and the availablity of external flashes is still there.

 

[cantaresg]

In any case, the motivation for this discussion here came from http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=307854&page=3, where rvxing mentioned that liveview will eventually replace the use of viewfinders for framing.

 

[lovells19]

hmm

1. faster focusing
2. ability to change lens
3. ability to shoot 5fps or higher
4. ability to shoot 100+ jpegs at 5fps
5. better picture quality
6. RAW
7. Feels better when shooting for long period
8. Apeture Preview
9. Its never same shooting thru the lens and thru a LCD
10. Better at getting Attention from Models
11. External Flashes
12. Bulb Mode
13. Better Choices of Lens
14. Custom Mode
15. More Control over camera's setting
16. Faster Responds
and the list goes on

1000. They will never give u a compact thats as good as a DSLR

 

[dnaxe]

hmm

1. faster focusing
2. ability to change lens
3. ability to shoot 5fps or higher
4. ability to shoot 100+ jpegs at 5fps
5. better picture quality
6. RAW
7. Feels better when shooting for long period
8. Apeture Preview
9. Its never same shooting thru the lens and thru a LCD
10. Better at getting Attention from Models
11. External Flashes
12. Bulb Mode
13. Better Choices of Lens
14. Custom Mode
15. More Control over camera's setting
16. Faster Responds
and the list goes on

1000. They will never give u a compact thats as good as a DSLR

1. is still true

2. will probably always be true

3. used to be true, but hello casio 60 fps camera

4. used to be true, but hello casio 60 fps camera

5. probably always true - larger sensor

6. not necessarily true

7. debatable

8. digital preview is better

9. only because the LCD is insufficiently sharp

10. lol. pretty face is best

11. not necessarily true

12. uh. yes. long exposure is not that rare though

13. etc etc... P&S cameras are (And should be) getting closer!

So I would never say never

 

[Deadloner]

Suppose we have 40D, but with the viewfinder and mirror mechanism removed.
Assuming the sensor does not get hot after constant use of live view. All other functions remains the same.
The camera is still functioning as what a DSLR is capable of. So is there still a need for the viewfinder and mirror?

 

[LittleWolf]

In the past, cameras are built with a lens that focus light onto a film and a separate viewfinder for framing the scene. This has a disadvantage as the scene as appeared to the viewfinder and through the lens may be considerably different due to parallax.

The innovation of SLR (single lens reflex) cameras has changed this radically, in the way that the viewfinder is able to view the scene through the same lens that the image will be taken. Due to this, another advantage is that you are able to change the lens and still able to compose the scene without much difficulty. You are not able to do that in a fixed-lens camera.

However, as we enter the digital age, the scene has changed yet again. Now, with ccd/ cmos imaging, live view is possible even on point and shoot cameras, which make viewfinders increasingly redundant especially in smaller PNS cameras. In fact, most camera still holds a viewfinder mostly for decorative purposes, they are almost never used for phototaking.

That said, the later models of DSLR now possess the technology of live viewing as well. Now, with live viewing technology, is this going to make the viewfinders on DSLR redundant in the near future, since we will still be able to frame the scene on the LCD screen? Is the SLR mechanism going to be useless? Is there still a point in keeping the SLR technology, since from now on, a camera can use changeable lenses even without a mirror reflex to redirect the view to the viewfinder?

There's a lot of inherent advantages in abandoning the SLR design - no alignment issues of the focal planes of image sensor, screen, and AF sensors (i.e. no more "front focusing" or "back focusing" issues); better metering with almost unlimited flexibility via the image sensor at zero hardware cost; better viewfinder in low light; less vibrations; less noise; etc. But the technology is probably not quite ready yet when it comes to high-resolution, low-latency electronic viewfinders, image sensor heating, autofocus speed (it's hard to determine in which direction to correct), etc.

 

[advrider]

slr camera always easiler to hold. :thumbsup:

 

[cantaresg]

Suppose we have 40D, but with the viewfinder and mirror mechanism removed.
Assuming the sensor does not get hot after constant use of live view. All other functions remains the same.
The camera is still functioning as what a DSLR is capable of. So is there still a need for the viewfinder and mirror?

This is basically what I meant. I am not referring to the PNS camera that we are having now, but rather a full featured "DSLR" body and functionality, but without the mirror mechanism to redirect the light into the viewfinder.

At the rate that technology is advancing, one day, these technical issues may be solved in the near future. As mentioned, there may be less backfocusing or frontfocusing problems, so there is no requirement for lens calibration function.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
May be they'll put a LCD in the viewfinder like the video cam... may be even with the option of image intensifier... easier to frame your shot at very low light condition when you can't see clearly using a normal viewfinder.

Have a nice day.

 

[obewan]

I had used a prosumer cam with EVF and the LCD to take pics.
Under dim light condition the EVF was quite a challenge to use.
Under bright sunlight the LCD was another challenge.
The battery life is drained much faster using the LCD. So most of the time
I will use the EVF to get a bit more shots.

After I bought my DSLR, and look through a 'real' viewfinder, I just love the viewfinder. :lovegrin:
Battery life of a DSLR is also super long, coz the LCD is only for viewing and not
for composing picture. I believe by using the viewfinder I will save some energy for a few more extra shots. :bsmilie:

I'm not sure about others, but I personally love a SLR type of camera.

Technology will change a lots of things in the future. Including the way we take pictures.
However, some old habits are just hard to change.
SLR will always have a place for some photographers even though DSLR had become affordable.
We are all difference, so we need difference tools to take photos.
Be it rangefinder, P&S, SLR, DSLR, pinhole camera, etc. there will always be a demand for each type.

 

[lovells19]

yeah i guess its the ergonomic of the camera

I'll still opt for a DSLR even if there's a Compact with its features

 

[felixcat8888]

Have you ever tried holding a SLR/DSLR and using only the LCD, frame your pic? Try that with a heavy lens and see whether you can still take a pic without it getting blurred or whatever. Most of us who use SLR place it close to the body/face to get more stability.

 

[genegoh]

I haven't tried a DSLR with liveview yet... but last time I used the FZ30... what you see on the LCD just isn't fast enough, especially for events.
I guess it's like viewing a concert live, at most through a glass panel, compared to viewing the concert on TV or DVD.
Why do people pay hundreds of dollars to watch a live concert when they can buy the DVD or better still watch it on TV?
There is a difference.