Swivel LCD Screens on Digital SLRs?

[pyre2004]

Hi all,

Was wondering whether any of you felt that a swivelling little (not

too little, maybe 2 in. would be nice) LCD screen that some lower

end digicams have would be useful to have on nice new digital slrs?

For instance, particularly for journalists if you want a picture of

someone walking past and you're blocked by a crowd, waving your

camera frantically overhead snapping away hoping you've taken at

least 1 good shot by reviewing it afterward. Doesn't it make sense

then to have a rotating swiveling little screen that would make life

so much simpler, just like the old TLRs where you could hold them

upside down and see what you're really aiming at. After all, you're

paying that much more for a digital slr relative to a low end one

that has it, and which is supposed to make life that much easier.

Surely there must be a way of incorporating this without

compromising structural integrity.

[ronbudway]

I think the only digicams that have it are the more expensive ones that cost

almost as much as the D300. I think only the Canon G series and upper level

Nikon Coolpix. I cannot understand why none of the Digital SLRs have them

except for the extra bulk involved. I have a Coolpix 5400 with the swivel

screen. The screen itself is very small -- 1.5" I think, but it protrudes quite a bit

from the back of the camera.

 

It really is a a terrific feature. Here's a good point about it I havn't heard

elsewhere -- if you are taking pictures of a baby or toddler, the kid can be

looking at your big smiley face instead of at a camera lens.

[greg_erker]

DSLRs don't have live display on the LCD due to the mirror,

shutter and generally the sensors used don't support video.

 

It still could be useful: take the shot over your head, look at

the LCD, shoot again if necessary.

 

Greg

[maureen_m]

There are a few comments on this subject over in the Canon EOS forum right now.<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006aII">Click here.</a><p>P&S and DSLR cameras are really two very different things with very different abilities offered to very different markets. Can't have everything...

[andrew robertson]

My view: just one more thing that'd be built with a flimsy hinge and bust off.

[steve_barnett2]

Yes, its the sort of thing that would last all of thirty seconds on a pro camera. Maybe has a use in low end DSLR equipment as another 'toy' feature.

[peter_phan]

It is not functionally possible to have a live-preview LCD on a DSLR because of the design of SLR cameras. Light enters the lens, reflects off a mirror, into the viewfinder pentaprism, and out the optical viewfinder window into the photographer's eye. The light never hits the sensor until you trip the shutter, at which time the mirror flips up, the shutter opens, and the sensor/film is exposed to the light. This is very different from a digicam, which doesn't use a reflex mirror. If you wanted to have live preview, you would have to attach a micro-camera to the viewfinder and have a cable to an LCD screen, like what Contax did with their N1.

[nom]

The ONLY reason why I don't buy a DSLR is because they don't have a swivel LCD screen and LCD preview. I just CAN'T live without it! Give me a top quality 18x24 sensor digital camera with swivel LCD and I don't care at all if it is SLR or not.

[craig_gillette]

There is no insurmountable reason why an external finder couldn't be worked into the design, however the external finder would (the way things are now) have to be functional with the mirror up, so it would be useful for odd angle displays, etc. There is probably no insurmountable reason why beam splitting, prisms, etc., couldn't be developed to split the light to both a sensor and an eyepiece. How cheaply or brightly may well be another question. Eyepieces and monitors/displays are used on video cameras, etc., and they can be made to be quite sturdy. But there isn't a lot of demand for it and phojos are used to holding a camera up and hoping. Hey, with film they didn't even have a chance to review the results.

[andrew robertson]

Jordan, I hope your post was in jest. Optical viewfinders are quite superior to digital

ones. You can't judge absolutely critical focus IN ANY WAY without an optical finder

(or a rangefinder).

 

If that's the only thing keeping you from an SLR digital camera prepare to wait a heck

of a lot longer, because I doubt it'll happen.

[jon_austin]

In May, when I was shopping for my third digital camera, one of the most important factors that induced me to jump from "prosumer" (a.k.a. high-end P&S) digicams (Minolta DiMAGE 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700) to a dSLR (Canon 10D) was to obtain a true optical -- as opposed to electronic -- viewfinder. (Interchangeable lenses was the other big factor; the avoidance of stupid product names like "DiMAGE" and "Coolpix" was just a bonus...)

 

The very design that enables cameras such as these to deliver a live video feed to an LCD screen makes it impossible for them to incorporate a through-the-lens (TTL) optical viewfinder. Since the parallax view caused by any non-TTL optical viewfinder is undesirable, these cameras feature a (slow, lower-rez-than-optical) electronic viewfinder instead.

 

Conversely, the design that makes TTL optical viewfinders possible on (d)SLRs prevents live video feed to the back-panel LCD.

 

This is simply one of those either/or situations, based upon the fundamental design decisions in cameras. You can't have it both ways in any single camera, but you CAN buy one of each!

[digitmstr]

Personally, I am waiting for the Virtual-3D glasses attachment for my EOS10D ;P

[erb_duchenne]

Personally I think such a DSLR won't sell.

 

On the one hand, pros will avoid it like the plague. Those flimsy danglers won't survive any riots or tight crowds, not to mention drops and bangs.

 

Then the prosumers, who thought they'd buy it, suddenly distance themselves from a Digital Rebel with the cheap swivelling screen which costs $100 more than a 10D.

[pyre2004]

It may be flimsy, but how much less flimsy is an F5 with an SB28 in a crowd or riot? And already, the nature of DIGITAL SLRs aren't rugged relative to their film counterparts. Looks like we won't see this anytime soon given that there isn't streaming video, unless "they" allow mirror lock-up and focusing through the LCD screen (weird...although I guess you would most probably use AF when you hold a camera overhead).

I feel that it's a worthy addition perhaps for a different market niche. Product differentiation is nearly always a good thing. I have nothing against viewfinders, I love them to death, I don't even own a digicam. However i can envision them for those very few circumstances. The digital age is here and isn't technology supposed to make life less difficult?

Maybe Casio can incorporate their G-shock watch technology into DSLRs...and pigs will fly....

[bruno_passigatti]

Swivels altered digital photography like no other device in the past couple of years.

It's a completely different way of shooting, more comparable to

medium format. The first manufacturer of an integrated swivel LCD

into a SLR will make tons of money (watch). I think there are

more pro's out there using so called "prosumer" digicams with swivels then we think (I'm one of them). I think the classic SLR as a model for digital photography is completely outdated and lame. I have a feeling that designs based on video, with a form factor and feel of a classic medium format waist level viewfinder/LCD, would have a better future. If you can't wait, go and get the Sony F828.