do we still need dslr?

<p>I know I must be overlooking something somewhere, but here is a question I was discussing with a friend of mine.<br>

Suppose we agree that the major reason for the invention of the slr was the mirror and the ability to look/meter through the lens, and the ability to change lenses (although some rangefinder can do that).<br>

If this is true, then now there should be no problem to see through the lens because once the image hits the sensor, it can be (electronically) transferred to the lcd screen (or wherever else you want, viewfinder etc...). We could use interchangeable lenses withouot any mirrors or curtains but just the old round shutter (the James Bond one, I forget its name) and thus have lighter hardware and more quiet operation etc...<br>

So why are dslr still superior?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is a question of needs and personal preference. Quality images can be created with any system. You buy the tool that makes the most sense for your needs. Nothing more. </p>

 

<p>For me, it's because I want to <em>continue</em> to see through the lens, rather than look at a backlit LCD display. Such displays have their own brightness relative to the surroundings, have their own tone mappings and white balance issues, have resolution and dynamic range limitations, can mess with your night vision in dim lighting, etc. <br /><br />Which doesn't mean they aren't useful as-is for some people, or that they won't continue to improve. But they're not the same things as having your eye collect photons that have wandered in through the lens, and the differences can be very tangible.</p>

<p>I believe this comes down to the question, do we still need OVF's when we have high quality EVF's? IMO the day may come when EVF's are as good or better than OVF's, but as of now I still prefer an OVF.</p>

<p>Aside from the issues raised above, an EVF system (which includes the sensor and processor) uses power, while an OVF does not. That's why I like to turn off the LCD on my little G11 and use my OVF.</p>

<p>The fact is that SLR viewing isn't all that simple. First, you're not "looking through the lens". Exactly as with the EVFs or LCDs, one is looking at <em>a screen, unto which a projected image that has been through a prism is seen. </em>It is very easy to forget all that. Apparent brightness is to a significant degree dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens. It also has an apparent viewing distance, usually around 1 m. The contrast of what one sees through an SLR or DSLR varies depending on the screen, and DSLR screens tend to be brighter and lower contrast than old pro SLRs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, since we're splitting hairs ... an EVF's LCD (or OLED, etc) screen is <em>emitting</em> light, in a pattern that the camera's software has decided is the right way to present a version of what has landed on the sensor.<br /><br />The OVF screen in an SLR isn't a <em>source</em> of pixel-based light, it's simply in the optical path between the front of the lens and your eye - just like all of the lens elements are, and just like the VF's rear-most piece of glass is. This one additional layer is a place on which to park/project all softs of useful information (like focus point indicators, split-focus widgets, etc). But those photons (most of them, anyway) just keep going, right on through it, to your eye. It's not like a phosphor screen, where a wave/particle stimulates something else, which in <em>turn</em> emits what you actually end up seeing (as in a CRT). </p>

<p>One advantage of an EVF is that it can produce a good approximation of the actual image that will be recorded (taking exposure settings into account to show image brightness), which an OVF can't do. Another nice feature of at least some EVF's (such as Olympus' EVF for the digital PENs) is that when an object is in focus, you see a subtle moire pattern which is effectively a focusing aid that covers the entire frame.</p>

<p>For now, though, my preference is for OVFs... I'm traditional in that way and I dislike the excessive reliance on electronics characteristic of today's cameras.</p>

<p>It isn't splitting hairs, it's simple fact(s). The (D)SLR screen is also <em>emitting</em> light, in this case <em>transmitted</em> light, in a pattern that the way the screen's plastic or glass is ground/etched decides. The brightness has little bearing on reality. In the same scene, it can look very different between a 50mm f/1.4 lens and an f/4 zoom or tele. I am not taking this lightly, because these facts are often taken for granted, as above, when people who prefer (D)SLRs are making their case.</p>

<p>One other thing. Looking at the SLR screen is a monocular experience. Looking at images on the web, in print or in books is a stereotaxic experience, which is a very different thing. I own and use quite a few SLRs and DSLRs, and appreciate the benefits of the OVF, but I do not think it is better or worse than LED screens (I do dislike EVFs) or the clear, direct viewing of a Rangefinder's window.</p>

<p>All viewing systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Weighing them as they are is, in my opinion, a good decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the major reason for the invention of the slr was the mirror and the ability to look/meter through the lens, and the ability to change lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>changing lenses is not relevant as that can be done on a variety of camera types.</p>

<p>Using the mirror to see exactly what is coming through the lens is the point, and as yet the EVF I've used aren't up to it. They're mostly usable, and I tend to defend them against criticism, but they're not nearly the same thing as an SLR design. I'm not sure they ever will be, as they're a slightly different concept.<br>

It will still not surprise me if at some point most DSLR users do switch to an EVF design, but if that happens that would be some years in the future, for now they're just not good enough. Even then it might still sensible to use a DSLR on occasions, and some people will simply from preference. An EVF can have advantages,and eventually might be a better choice, but I don't think it will ever be a straight replacement.</p>

<p>I think the the round shutter referred to would be a leaf shutter, not clear how that would be an improvement unless the lens is a fixed one. If they're interchangeable, then usually you have a shutter built into each lens. I don't think it would be an improvement.</p>

 

<p>I'm with Matt on this. I still want to see through the lens. I also like to see what the camera is seeing, so the digital presentation is also very useful. I'm also fairly set in my habits after all these years and like the ergonomics of the SLR. I'm sure I could get used to other shapes -- I truly love the kind of reverse ergonomics of the classic Hasselblad -- it is a left handed camera. I always found using it that it slowed me down just a tad and let me think through shots better. That is why I loved it for product shots and fashion. I liked it far more in the studio than on location. <br>

After fifty years or so of using the SLR ergonomics, it seems the way nature intended us to look through cameras.</p>

<p>as far as i know, other forms of cameras directed to the masses are not as quickly responsive as DSLRs ( shutter lag) and that may be of paramount importance in shooting moving objects... for me that's the main advantage of a dslr compared to other systems with interchangeable lenses ( let alone a camera where you can not change lenses)..<br>

addendum: rangefinders may not have that limitation but usually fall behind in range of lenses available ( esp on tele-end and macro)..</p>

<p>In the 1980's I drew up a wish list of the camera I'd love to own. That particular camera would have a screen on the back that would show me exactly the picture I was going to take. Small LCD panels weren't small or good enough to be put in a viewfinder, so that's why I wanted one in the back of the film camera. Apparently my wishes came true and now we have LCD's on the back of cameras that show pretty close what the picture I took. And now we have electronic viewfinders and that's even more exciting.<br>

So the OP's question was a good one. I ask the same question myself. Do we really need a DSLR? I think once shutter lag disappears from non-DSLR's and electronic viewfinders (or LCDs) are the norm they might disappear. Just look at the new camera bodies coming out now. Many of them look like a lens with this tiny box at the rear. I think eventually that will be the norm and the DSLR will be a thing of the past.</p>

<p>The LCD on the back of the camera is too small and an EVF viewfinder is large enough but with today's technology it's still not having sufficient resolution to manual focus without enlarge portion of the picture. I need the SLR viewfinder to manual focus easily and quickly. I can focus on any part of the image without having to do a focus then recompose. </p>

<p>"once shutter lag disappears from non-DSLRs ..."</p>

<p>that's the key phrase for me.. (actually i just remembered that SLT camera's may already have solved the shutter lag issue, but i think they still "lag" in low light performance)..</p>

<p>I haven't yet seen an EVF that would make we want to give up the OVF in a SLR/DSLR; that day may come eventually though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just look at the new camera bodies coming out now. Many of them look like a lens with this tiny box at the rear. I think eventually that will be the norm and the DSLR will be a thing of the past.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And with that tiny box comes poor ergonomics as there isn't a good way to hold that thing. I tried a NEX with a 18-55 in a store - poor handling doesn't even come close to describing what I experienced. As usual when marketing trumps engineering - we get poorly designed items that are hardly useful for the task at hand. We may see the disappearance of the DSLR sometime in the future, but I sure hope what you describe will not be the norm then.</p>

<p>I started with "gripless" film cameras (like a Nikon FM) that weren't very comfortable to hold. An F3 with its tiny grip was already a major improvement - but only when the AF bodies with their beefy grips arrived on the markets did ergonomics take a big step in the right direction. Currently, the miniaturizing trend of camera bodies is a step in the wrong direction and hopefully will be corrected again. For example, for me, the Nikon D7000 is too narrow and with the square grip is very uncomfortable to hold - which was the main reason I did not buy one.</p>

<p>“do we still need dslr?”</p>

<p>“So why are dslr still superior?”</p>

<p>My interchangeable lens dSLR is always superior to my interchangeable lens digital compact camera except when the reverse is true.</p>

<p><a href=" </div>

<p>All good things must end someday and the flopping mirror design "will" eventually get replaced by EVILS in one incarnation or another. Sony is already using EVF's that are much better to work with than the small OVF's the competition uses in similar priced cameras.</p>

<p>I am sure the DSLR will fade away as new generations of photographers shoot exclusively with an LCD screen or EVF. For me nothing can replace the good old optical viewfinder for photographic composition. I want to see through the lens, even a rangefinder doesn't do it for me like an SLR does. </p>

<p>Well, for me, I think as soon as more companies have faster/better tracking with their AF and larger eco-systems, we will start seeing more people switch.</p>

<p>I just picked up an E-PM1 to compliment my Nikon gear, and have to say, it makes me hopeful for the future. It's small and light, and extremely quick (I don't notice shutter lag). It just is really bad at AF tracking, which is probably the one spot I need it to work the most. After that, more/faster lenses, a better sensor, and a few better accessories (flashes mainly) and we could be in business.<br>

And I have to add, ever since shooting LF, I don't like looking through viewfinders.</p>

<p>DSLRs have two distinct advantages (regarding OVF) still today ergonomics and preferences aside:</p>

<ol>

<li>Auto focus tracking</li>

<li>battery life</li>

</ol>

<p>Everything else depends on which EVF and OVF we are comparing. For example, the D3 OVF is better than the sony a33 EVF in lowlight. On the other hand, the A77 EVF blows away, say, a D90 OVF. Lastly but not least, I think my F2AS OVF is better than both contemporary OVF and EVF for simple viewing...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think top end cameras will ever just have an LCD screen on the back. The brightness required and the glare issues and the need to hold it away from you, makes it unstable. I think using an eye piece of some sort also allows for optical adjustment for glasses wearers, which I doubt any LCD can do. I can see some very small but very detailed viewing screen IN the camera, like an optical viewfinder, could work. But they will have to get very fast and not have the engineers bias built in. What is out there should be exactly what you see.</p>

<p> </p>

In the evolution of technology, whenever electronics can replace something that moves, it does. The moving stuff stays

around (CDs, mechanical wristwatches, etc..., and now SLRs), but it no longer dominates.

<p>I own the Samsung NX100 and played with the Sony NEX 7. Very impressive finders, especially the Sony. The next generation Fuji will be coming out in January so we will see. It could be a game changer for me. Lens development and support commitment may, in the end tip the scale. That's where traditional DSLR's have an edge. </p>

<p>John- The Samsung already has diopter correction for it's NX100 EVF. </p>

<p>Too bad they don't have a glare fix, to bright to see the LCD panel fix, and a can't hold it steady away from my body fix. I'm not sure how you fix the bright LCD in a dark environment problem.</p>

<p> </p>