In article , William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

By definition, no. There's the Panasonic Lumix G1, which is basically
a DSLR with no mirror, pentaprism, or viewfinder, but that makes it
not actually an SLR. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/

But the original claim was that there are few SLRs using electronic
viewfinders and they were all low end. In fact live view is becoming
more common, and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, while not at the very top
end, is hardly low end either.

In article , Tim S wrote:
Andy Champ coughed up some electrons that declared:

wrote:

Red green and blue are defined scientifically as primary colors. I
don't know where those standards came from, nor do I care

You may not care, but I'm going to tell you anyway

It's from Biology, not physics; RGB are the peak sensitivities of the
three colour receptors in the most common human retina. We're so poor
at telling them apart that a red-green mix looks pretty much like some
kind of yellow. (Narrow spectrum lamps are fine for TV, but they can
make your wallpaper look a bit odd, which is one of the CFL problems)

Most common sort? Well, colour blindness is an obvious case. But
apparently a few women have 4-colour vision.

Just out of interest, what's the 4th colour?

Two different "green" receptors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opsin#C...2_opsin_groups
With two different X chromosomes it's possible to have both
OPN1MW and OPN1MW2.

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money,
and I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from
one particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that
colours were "bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer
that there was something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket
on the cricket, was yellow ...

LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is often
yellow?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

It was actually Mrs Fussy that always called us. Mr Fussy was an inoffensive
little thing who sat quietly up the corner ... No amount of explanation
would ever convince her that sometimes, grass *is* yellow. There was only
ever one engineer that she would have work on her set as well. I was his
apprentice, so I got to call on her with him. I clearly remember on one
occasion when my mentor was on holiday, the boss decided to send me on a
call to her, figuring that it would be ok, as she already knew me, and knew
that I was Peter's apprentice. When I turned up at her house, she wouldn't
even let me in the door. She told me that she was sure that I was very good,
but that I was not Peter, and he was the only one capable of adjusting her
TV just the way she liked it. The really amusing thing was that Peter never
really actually did anything other than take the back off and make twiddling
motions with his arms, and then ask her if it now looked better. Putting up
a test card showing a perfectly adjusted picture was also a no-no. She would
just trill "I don't care if you think that that silly picture looks right or
not. We don't sit here watching a test card, do we ?"

On one occasion when there was a real fault, and a replacement component had
to be soldered in, she marched into the room and said "Peter ! I do hope
that you're not smoking behind my television !" There are endless stories of
encounters with this customer, whom I swear was a real person,and who
behaved exactly as described.

Ah, happier and gentler times ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't
believe that there has been any significant change in their colour
rendition capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk,
which I worked with from about 1970

Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really came
in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply because
it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications to flesh
tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

I would almost bet my life that this is absolutely backwards -- it was the
original phosphors that were orangish, improving only with the rare-earth
phosphors of the early '60s. (I remember Sylvania's radio ads.)

In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of what's being posted about color
TV
and color analysis/reproduction is utter bilge. But I don't have a
comprehensive understanding of this material (it's not easy), so I'm
pretty
much keeping my mouth shut.



What I said about non-spectral colours, and the inability of a tri colour
CRT to genuinely reproduce them, is not bilge though - see the link that I
posted earlier in the thread, refering to this.

Arfa

Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Larter wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

Arfa Daily wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones
in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition
under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a grand's
worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end, although I am sure
there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel on them to
at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to plug the
thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it being a portable
'digital' camera, doesn't it ? Even the 3 grand offering on this page has a
3" LCD

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Digita...utm_medium=cpc

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.


It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.


Why bother?

That's all doable post the event in photoshop.

What you DO need is a histogram display to show you haven't saturated
any of the channels. That you cant 'shop out.

I shoot entirely without more than a quick color temp adjustment, and
often not that.

If I want a crisper image for a product shot, I can do all that in software.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Then you need a video camera ;-)

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.

You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

Regards,

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

Well I shot 150 pics on Sunday and ddi'nt look at a single one till
Sunday night. What's the point? they were action shots. They either
worked or they didn't.

About 10% were usable.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh
tones in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the
two has commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour
rendition under all light levels (input that is, not viewing
conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low
end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a
grand's worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end, although I
am sure there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel
on them to at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to
plug the thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it
being a portable 'digital' camera, doesn't it ? Even the 3 grand offering
on this page has a 3" LCD

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Digita...utm_medium=cpc

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I
accept that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder
operating on the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves
as a supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos
already taken.


It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?




My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well. With
the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to store both.
I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send them to
the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

Leonard

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

As to whether LEDs as backlights do a good job, I'm sure that they must
be at least as good as CCFLs at colour rendering, otherwise, the
manufacturers wouldn't be making such a thing about it. Flesh tones look
perfectly fine on digital cameras which use LED backlit displays.


Looking perfectly fine is a very subjective assessment. It is fine for
most people, but you simply cannot assume that either technology will be
better or worse. It depends on many factors. Assumptions usually bite
you in the ass. You should know that by now, Arfa.

Me, if I want to know that my screen is rendering colour correctly, I
stick my Colorvision Spyder to it & measure it. That way, I know for sure.

Your Spyder will not give accurate results on narrow spectrum devices like
LED backlit displays, or even some LCDs with CCFLs or DLP and LCOS displays.
It depends greatly on the relation of the filters in your colorimeter to the
filters in the display, and the spectrum of the source. To accurately
measure many of the newer displays like the LED lit and the new laser based
DLP sets, you really need a spectrophotometer with very fine resolution,
preferably in the 1 nM range. Tristimulus colorimeters like the spyder and
all of the Sencore probes are rapidly becoming less useful.

Leonard

Arfa Daily wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)


If you really want to stir him up, tell him all tobacco should be
banned. Then he will throw a hissy fit Phil Allison would be proud of.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store
both. I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send
them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

I find it interesting how people -- carelessly, if not deliberately --
misread posts.

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

You don't have depth-of-field preview on the camera?

It's rarely mentioned that DoF preview is little more than a minor
convenience. It's likely to show more depth of field that you actually get,
because we usually look at the finished print at an effective magnification
higher than the viewfinder's, and the focusing screen's grain (however fine)
obscures the distinction between what is and what isn't out of focus. *

The safest thing one can say is that if something looks out of focus during
DoF preview, it will almost always be out of focus in the print. The
opposite is not necessarily true.

Canon's DoF preview, when a suitable electronic flash is attached, fires the
flash for about one second. This not only provides illumination to overcome
the dim image at small f-stops, but gives a good idea of the evenness (or
lack thereof) of the lighting.

* In general, the coarser the grain, the dimmer the image, but the
more-obviously objects pop in and out of focus. This is one of the reasons
professional cameras offer a variety of focusing screens.

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:02:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
snip
The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.

You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

Indeed I do - but like most DOF previews it requires you to press the
button and hold it to maintain the function. You'd then have to
select the zoom focus function to magnify the portion of the image you
wanted to work on and make suitable adjustments - then move it to the
other end of the depth of field and do likewise...then move it back to
check the previous setting...and so on - and all on a three inch
screen. That's assuming you don't regard such conveniences as being
for wimps and prefer to squint through the viewfinder. You'd need a
particularly good tripod too with all that button pressing.
Using the data cable and a computer makes the operation faster, more
precise and realistically more feasible - all of which are benefits a
professional would consider essential.

In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

See above.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...

Most common sort? Well, colour blindness is an obvious case. But
apparently a few women have 4-colour vision.

Is that why they take so long choosing anything from curtains to shoe colour
?
And then change their mind again, to the one they liked 4 hours ago.

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...

I've seen the commercial and questioned myself as to how the hell
someone came up with a pure LED screen that could reproduce millions
of colors precisely. But then I thought of Sony's Organic Display and
thought maybe it was a take on that.

I guess now that I think of it and knowing of the Sony OLED, Sammy
calling it an LED TV does seem a bit more deceptive to me at least.

Any thoughts on the 24-inch Apple LED Cinema Display
it's a bit pricey and it might be good of displaying photos but I'm not sure
about
movies as it has a 14ms refresh rate.
Seems to have good reviews from users though.

But I believe that too is just backlit LED .

"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 17:12:38 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Meat Plow" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:08 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use
sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At
sizes
up
to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links to see
what
it
was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things
are
only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know
that
flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right to
actually call these "LED TVs" ? Seems like a bit of a deliberately
misleading use of the terminology to me - or is it maybe just me being a
picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Arfa



Seeing most people don't know a liquid crystal from a light emitting
diode I'd say the ad is pretty low on the deception meter.

Perhaps, but I think that the current generation might just be rather more
savvy about this sort of thing than you give them credit for ...

Arfa


Maybe across the pond they are but I see no evidence of that here

I've seen the commercial and questioned myself as to how the hell
someone came up with a pure LED screen that could reproduce millions
of colors precisely. But then I thought of Sony's Organic Display and
thought maybe it was a take on that.

I guess now that I think of it and knowing of the Sony OLED, Sammy
calling it an LED TV does seem a bit more deceptive to me at least.

Yes indeedy. I think there was maybe a degree of misunderstanding when I
suggested that people might be a bit more savvy about this terminology. I
don't for one minute think that Joe Average Punter, would have the slightest
understanding of the actual differences in the technology, but I think that
most would know that the TV sets that you buy now are either "LCD" or
"Plasma". I am pretty sure that most will also have heard of - and many will
have had experience of - LED lighting, not the least because all the kids
fit (what used to be illegal) blue LEDs in their car lights now, and all
have seen LED Christmas lights. So I think that they might well think that a
"LED TV" was actually something different from the current norm. Add to that
a bit of sharp salesman point-of-sale hype, and I think that the whole thing
is, as was my original point long, long ago, more than a little misleading.
Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a thread last year,
that had been successfully prosecuted as being misleading in the U.S., I am
surprised that someone has not picked up on it over there ...

Arfa

Considering some of the cases that William S cited in a
thread last year, that had been successfully prosecuted
as being misleading in the US, I am surprised that someone
has not picked up on it over there...

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD TV" --
which is at least confusing.

PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

* Other than being able to display a "true" black.

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:02:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
snip
The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

Indeed I do - but like most DOF previews it requires you to press the
button and hold it to maintain the function. You'd then have to
select the zoom focus function to magnify the portion of the image you
wanted to work on and make suitable adjustments - then move it to the
other end of the depth of field and do likewise...then move it back to
check the previous setting...and so on - and all on a three inch
screen. That's assuming you don't regard such conveniences as being
for wimps and prefer to squint through the viewfinder. You'd need a
particularly good tripod too with all that button pressing.
Using the data cable and a computer makes the operation faster, more
precise and realistically more feasible - all of which are benefits a
professional would consider essential.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

See above.

Regards,


If that's what you are up to, get a full frame film camera.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
If I want to know that my screen is rendering colour correctly,
I stick my Colorvision Spyder to it & measure it. That way,
I know for sure.

Calibrating your monitor doesn't mean it renders color correctly. It means
that it renders it according to certain standards.

Well, obviously, but it's better than nothing.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money,
and I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from
one particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that
colours were "bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer
that there was something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket
on the cricket, was yellow ...
LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is often
yellow?


It was actually Mrs Fussy that always called us. Mr Fussy was an inoffensive
little thing who sat quietly up the corner ... No amount of explanation
would ever convince her that sometimes, grass *is* yellow. There was only
ever one engineer that she would have work on her set as well. I was his
apprentice, so I got to call on her with him. I clearly remember on one
occasion when my mentor was on holiday, the boss decided to send me on a
call to her, figuring that it would be ok, as she already knew me, and knew
that I was Peter's apprentice. When I turned up at her house, she wouldn't
even let me in the door. She told me that she was sure that I was very good,
but that I was not Peter, and he was the only one capable of adjusting her
TV just the way she liked it. The really amusing thing was that Peter never
really actually did anything other than take the back off and make twiddling
motions with his arms, and then ask her if it now looked better. Putting up
a test card showing a perfectly adjusted picture was also a no-no. She would
just trill "I don't care if you think that that silly picture looks right or
not. We don't sit here watching a test card, do we ?"

On one occasion when there was a real fault, and a replacement component had
to be soldered in, she marched into the room and said "Peter ! I do hope
that you're not smoking behind my television !" There are endless stories of
encounters with this customer, whom I swear was a real person,and who
behaved exactly as described.

grin I spent many years in the service industry, & I have a stock of
similar stories. My favourites are the colour-blind guy who complained
(under warranty) about his colour printers colour rendition, the lawyer
who sued my employer over his floppy disk drive, & the LOL[0] who was
upset that her inkjet wouldn't work without power.

Ah, happier and gentler times ...

Ayup. I really enjoyed being a field tech, even with all the loons you
see in that job.

[0] Little Old Lady.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

dennis@home wrote:


"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

Yes, that's what I do. It's especially important for my photography,
because I usually shoot under weird lighting, so it's impossible to set
an appropriate WB at the time.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

William Sommerwerck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Most of the time, (on my Canons, at least) the automatic WB is good
enough for a casual observer. However, I find it unacceptable for printing.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?




My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store both.

Yep, & the high end Canons can do that as well.

I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs
and send them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility
to tweak a particular image I send them the raw file.

I bet that shuts them up! ;^)


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions
you want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

My Nikon D60 has a raw+jpeg mode, and I think many others do as well.
With the size and speed of memory these days, it is not a big deal to
store
both. I do this for my son's baseball games and zip up the jpegs and send
them to the other parents and if someone wants more versatility to tweak a
particular image I send them the raw file.

I find it interesting how people -- carelessly, if not deliberately --
misread posts.

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

JW wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000 Bob Larter
wrote in Message id: :

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

For that kind of money, it better perform like those X-ray glasses you
used to be able to buy in the back of comic books!

grin You'd have to remove the IR filter & shoot with an IR strobe, but
yes, it could be done. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I rarely do studio shoots, so Live View is pretty much useless to me.
And this is despite the fact I often shoot wide-open at F1.4.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques,
such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.
The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

I think the new 500D and 50D models have this feature too, and it's
something I've got my eye on. I had a look at the specs of the new 5D
a while back and I'm sorely tempted...

The 5DII is a pretty nice camera. It's only major drawbacks are that
it's not as rugged or as fast to focus as the 1xx series Pro cameras.
It's really big plus is that it has a full-frame sensor, so you can make
the most of your wide-angle lenses.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

William Sommerwerck wrote:
You don't have depth-of-field preview on the camera?

It's rarely mentioned that DoF preview is little more than a minor
convenience.

Ayup. I find it easier to just rely on my experience, & just take the
shot. Most of the time, the DOF works out the way I want it to.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:02:17 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Stephen Howard wrote:
snip
The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

Indeed I do - but like most DOF previews it requires you to press the
button and hold it to maintain the function. You'd then have to
select the zoom focus function to magnify the portion of the image you
wanted to work on and make suitable adjustments - then move it to the
other end of the depth of field and do likewise...then move it back to
check the previous setting...and so on - and all on a three inch
screen. That's assuming you don't regard such conveniences as being
for wimps and prefer to squint through the viewfinder. You'd need a
particularly good tripod too with all that button pressing.
Using the data cable and a computer makes the operation faster, more
precise and realistically more feasible - all of which are benefits a
professional would consider essential.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

See above.

Regards,


If that's what you are up to, get a full frame film camera.

The EOS 5DII is a full-frame digital SLR.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa
Calm down my boy ! It's just a newsgroup discussion ... d:-)


If you really want to stir him up, tell him all tobacco should be
banned. Then he will throw a hissy fit Phil Allison would be proud of.

Hrmph! as I roll myself a cigarette..

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because
he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.


And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Larter wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though?

Yes, they do.

Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

No, you can't. What they're good for is to check the histogram to make
sure that you haven't blown out any of the colour channels, to check the
composition, & to make sure that the subject didn't blink at the wrong time.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

I do lots of nightclub photography, & it's great to be able to show the
subject the shot right after you've taken it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------