S.L.R. Why?
Aug 30, 2013 11:17:24 #
StevenVL
I absolutely agree.
Also, once upon a time I had a Bronica.
When it went off, it was not so much mirror slap, as recoil . . .
I absolutely agree.
Also, once upon a time I had a Bronica.
When it went off, it was not so much mirror slap, as recoil . . .
Aug 30, 2013 11:27:29 #
norvik1943
Loc: Jenks, OK and Domazan, France
Dlevon wrote:
No TucsonCoyote, no motor drive on mine, but it do... (show quote)
Drool, Drool, Drool. Such a beauty. Interchangable viewfinders too but not prism type. I think we destroyed East German prism making industry in WWII as they were doing pop-up viewers like the Rollei's for some time into the mid '50's at least. I have a German cousin camera with a eye-level prism viewfinder accessory. Praktica FX3, Korean War vintage, 35mm.
The Zeiss Ikon Contaflex of the same generation does have prism viewfinders though. Guess it was a localized problem.
The cloth focal plane shutters were pleasant to listen too. Quieter than the Graflex ones as 35mm,not 4X5 size.
Aug 30, 2013 12:04:50 #
Aug 30, 2013 12:22:00 #
Electronic viewfinders will be the better choice as they become better.
Why?
Less moving parts equals higher reliability. No moving mirror, no slap ever. Low light viewing can be dynamically adjusted onto the viewing surface so that it is easier to shoot with proper focus in low light conditions. A better frame rate, and in theory a lower cost due to all those expensive parts not being in the camera.
Will the cost savings on the manufacturer's part necessarily translate into lower cost at the counter? Not necessarily, as Nikon did not make their mirrorless systems cheaper than the DSLR, and sales figures seem to confirm that people don't want to give Nikon the margin boost.
A good transition would be to offer the same camera in two variants, one mirrorless, the other DSLR. My guess is that the advantages of a good mirrorless design would win over many DSLR users, (and if in the process they realised a savings, it could become a flood.)
Why?
Less moving parts equals higher reliability. No moving mirror, no slap ever. Low light viewing can be dynamically adjusted onto the viewing surface so that it is easier to shoot with proper focus in low light conditions. A better frame rate, and in theory a lower cost due to all those expensive parts not being in the camera.
Will the cost savings on the manufacturer's part necessarily translate into lower cost at the counter? Not necessarily, as Nikon did not make their mirrorless systems cheaper than the DSLR, and sales figures seem to confirm that people don't want to give Nikon the margin boost.
A good transition would be to offer the same camera in two variants, one mirrorless, the other DSLR. My guess is that the advantages of a good mirrorless design would win over many DSLR users, (and if in the process they realised a savings, it could become a flood.)
Aug 30, 2013 12:37:50 #
Aug 30, 2013 12:38:54 #
Griff wrote:
Many photographers seem very attached to the mirror and its box on an slr , as opposed to a camera without the mirror, but with a viewfinder.
Could they explain why?
Could they explain why?
Some possible explanations:
See what the camera sees through the lens.
Image quality.
Personal and sentimental attachment to expensive equipment combined with financial reasons not to shift to mirrorless equipment.
Although those are legitimate reasons, the mirrorless field will expand and eventually dominate the field. I am a DSLR owner, but have some experience with electronic viewfinders and think that a good one can do at least as well as the one in many DSLRs.
Aug 30, 2013 13:12:12 #
norvik1943
Loc: Jenks, OK and Domazan, France
Mudshark wrote:
SLR WHY?
because it's better than twin lens reflex...??
because it's better than twin lens reflex...??
Good point. Oh oh, fires from the different camps will burn brightly tonight. Gird for battle.
Pro TLR, large format negative, ie 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, INCHES, not 24X36 millimmeter. Anti- Square neg, lose top and bottom unless printing square prints. Large size does allow for great enlargments, lens quality and film grain size dependant.
Aug 30, 2013 13:26:35 #
norvik1943 wrote:
Drool, Drool, Drool. Such a beauty. Interchangab... (show quote)
Jorvik! Hi! In the picture the finder that's on the camera is a solid glass pentaprism with the ground glass on the bottom. When I wanted to critical focus , I used the waist level finder shown on the side. That had a 10x optical loupe built in, that you flipped up to look through. You whetted my appetite to get some film and use it again. It still works fine except for some minor deterioration in the flip up reflex mirror. Also after each shot, the view would black out until you flipped the film advance lever to the next shot, which in turn also moved the mirror up into the viewing and focusing position. I guess you had to know more about what you were doing in the olden days. I loved it!
Aug 30, 2013 13:35:47 #
Shot rangefinder cameras for years before SLR was available. A great improvement! Parallex was always a problem with RFs. As far as EVFs go, I just haven't seen one that shows the scene in what I feel is an acceptable way, although they are getting closer. Of course, this is personal preference at this point. The other part of the equation is that at present, there are no compact system cameras, 4/3 etc. that output the kind of quality that the higher end DSLRs do so the view finder became a moot point for me. The VF isn't the reason i bought my camera.
Aug 30, 2013 14:06:00 #
norvik1943
Loc: Jenks, OK and Domazan, France
Dlevon wrote:
Jorvik! Hi! In the picture the finder that's on t... (show quote)
Oops the waist level finder you posed on the lower left affected my judgement so I assumed the mounted one was also waist level. Can see the slight hump now. My Praktika's came with waist level viewfinders, eye-level an option. Like the Rolleis, they have the little magnifier lens and pop open front window for sport shots on the fly, like the Rolleis.
You have a beautifull camera set there. I wanted one for my collection but was always outbid on E-B*y. I do have a couple spare parts though that came with some Rollei parts. Think I have a front panel, with Exakta and model number but not the same as yours.
The blacked out viewfinder until you cock the shutter is normal for these models. The "Dark Slide" protects the exposed film from further exposure as the cloth shutter doesn't close again till you cock for next shot.
Later generations were more sophisticated allowing you to view thru the lens without cocking the focal plane cloth shutter. Cock yours, open the rear cover and look at the cloth shutter. Then fire and watch what happens.
Aug 30, 2013 14:06:29 #
norvik1943 wrote:
Good point. Oh oh, fires from the different camps will burn brightly tonight. Gird for battle.
Pro TLR, large format negative, ie 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, INCHES, not 24X36 millimmeter. Anti- Square neg, lose top and bottom unless printing square prints. Large size does allow for great enlargments, lens quality and film grain size dependant.
Pro TLR, large format negative, ie 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, INCHES, not 24X36 millimmeter. Anti- Square neg, lose top and bottom unless printing square prints. Large size does allow for great enlargments, lens quality and film grain size dependant.
oh...oh.... what I meant was...why use two lenses when one will do........:)
Aug 30, 2013 14:08:57 #
norvik1943
Loc: Jenks, OK and Domazan, France
Mudshark wrote:
oh...oh.... what I meant was...why use two lenses when one will do........:)
Very good point, and looking through the lens for your shot allows you to see what will be captured on film. With the TLR, you are seeing what the mirror reflects of the image through the focus lens, not the lens actually capturing the image. Go SLR.
Aug 30, 2013 17:59:23 #
photoninja1 wrote:
Shot rangefinder cameras for years before SLR was ... (show quote)
You must go back a ways. My first camera was also a rangefinder, an Argus C3 that was my dad's. But about 1968 I moved up to an Exacta SLR. As far as EVF's go I agree that many of them fall short. That said I think the oled viewfinder on my Sony Nex-6 is great. I would take this EVF over any SLR. I have the same oled EVF as an optional accessory on my Sony Nex-5n and I love the way I can angle it up for waist high shots.
Aug 30, 2013 19:33:29 #
One issue nobody has mentioned: Your viewfinder on a DSLR is always available, and uses no power. Batteries last longer as a result.
And it took a mirrorless camera user to bring that up...
And it took a mirrorless camera user to bring that up...
Aug 30, 2013 20:11:04 #
n3eg wrote:
One issue nobody has mentioned: Your viewfinder on a DSLR is always available, and uses no power. Batteries last longer as a result.
And it took a mirrorless camera user to bring that up...
And it took a mirrorless camera user to bring that up...
But the way battery technology is advancing, that will become less and less of a problem.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.