| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tizer
|
 Posted -
21/05/2010
:
10:06
|
I had a question about cameras and looked in the OGFB Photography forum for a suitable thread to ask it. There wasn't an obvious general thread for advice so I started this one for anyone like me who needs help. After all, there are some photo phanatics on OGFB who should be able to answer the odd question!
I know that SLR applied to conventional film cameras means single lens reflex and that what you see through the viewfinder is exactly what the lens sees. But in the case of an SLR digital camera does it mean the same? I've never used a digital SLR. For digital SLR the picture in the viewfinder might be the same as the picture through the lens but would I be seeing a simple image in the viewfinder created by light passing via lenses and mirrors only, or is the image in the viewfinder now electronic.
I'm prompted to ask this because I want to know more about digital camera viewfinders. I have a Canon compact digital which does a wonderful job and I use it a lot but the bubear for me with any of these cameras is not being able to see the screen in strong sunlight. I chose my Canon model partly becasue it has a conventional viewfinder as well as the screen. Experience shows me this viewfinder is a useful alternative for general scenic shots but no good for macro or zoom shots because the view and the picture don't coincide exactly. So I'm wondering what else there might be out there that would get over the sunlight problem. I have considered a digital SLR but I really like having asmall, light camera that I can put in my pocket (the Canon does this and yet has 6x optical zoom, anti-vibration, viewfinder).
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
catgate
|
Posted - 21/05/2010 : 10:23
We currently have two digital SLR cameras and both give the option of viewing "through the lens" (which I think is a misnomer but a good description of viewing your image through an aperture) or via a small screen. The change over is yet another button on the back of the camera. Both these cameras are Fuji.
We previously had an Olympus digital SLR and that two was the same, and so it seems to me that the SLR appelation is probably now used simply to denote that the viewfinding can be done in a manner similater to the olde worlde genuyne SLR cameras,
Every silver lining has a cloud.
 |
Bradders
|
Posted - 21/05/2010 : 10:59
Hello There Mr T...Digital SLRs do operate in the same way as the film type...The image in the viewfinder is optical....But for some reason ,if you take the battery out the image is duller....which tells me that even when switched off , there is a minute battery drain....
I use an oldish Nikon D100 it has a rechargable battery and I have never had it go flat ( I have spares and keep them charged in any case)
There are a number of reasons why I chose the Nikon......
Build quality....you could knock nails in with it....
6 mega pixels only.......unless you want big enlargements , or very close cropping , you might not need more ( File size could be too large)
And most important of all, LENS compatability......The D100 ( and other Nikons) have the same bayonet fitting as all the older film models.......If you use the autofocus , it is operated by mechanical means by the camera body......only the later models have linear motor only lenses......So there is a vast supply of relatively cheap high quality glasswear available....
I use a Tamron Aspheric 28/200 zoom, a VivitarSeries One 19/35 zoom and a Nikkor55mm Macro 3.5.
The first two are Auto focus the Nikkor is manual.
Because the sensor in a Nikon is "smaller" than the 35mm film format the focal length of the lenses is "lenghtened" by a factor of approx . 1.5 ...With the Tamron ,it's like using a 40/300 the Vivitar becomes 28/50 and the Nikkor is almost a Portrait lens , but will focus down to give nearly life size at about 10" from the "film" plane....
Whilest the D100 has Shutter priority, Aperture priority and Program ,I enjoy using it in completely Manual mode....Its just like the old days !
Some of Nikon's later models have actually been introduced year on year with less good specs. so I am a fan of the earlier offerings.
I'm sure Canon D SLRs are pretty good too but I don't think they are as versatile....Sony Cameras ar what became of Minolta
Any Help ?
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Bradders
|
Posted - 21/05/2010 : 11:07
Whilest I was typing the above (and it always takes me ages) Catgate also replied.......
He is correct in some respects....but there ARE true Digital SLRs as I have described .
The type of camera Catgate is using should really be described as "Bridge" Cameras but the manufacturers seem to have dropped that handle. They are identifiable by not often having interchangable lenses.
Edited by - Bradders on 21/05/2010 11:09:10 AM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Tizer
|
Posted - 21/05/2010 : 15:46
Thanks both, Bradders was generous with his information but the most relevant point was his first sentence about the way the viewfinder works in a digital SLR. I'm not keen to switch to another camera but I might be drawn if I found one that did what my digital compact (Canon Powershot A720IS, 8MP, 6x optical zoom) does but overcame the bright sunlight viewfinder problem. I don't want to be swapping lenses - I get all I want with the zoom and macro functions. I'll never be an expert, I just like it to be easy! Oh, and the camera must be no bigger or heavier than my Canon. I don't want much do I?
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/05/2010 : 17:32
Not all film SLRs gave a true image in the viewfinder, always a big selling point with the Nikon SLRs and the Leica non SLRs. Easy to check, take a pic of a brick wall with two marks on it (stick two pieces of sticky tape on) do a pic dead level at centre of the distance between the two off a tripod, get the marks just in the view. Look at the pic after and you'll see how accurate your viewfinder is in the horizontal plane, if it's good there it will be in the verticl as well. Also the bricks will show you if there is any spherical aberration. Most impressive lens I ever had was a Nikon 13mm, it was a recilinear image, amazing. (I paid £700 for it secondhand and sold it for the same amount)
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Tizer
|
Posted - 22/05/2010 : 10:48
In the 1970s I had a Zenith bought from a camera shop run by an enthusiast. I didn't have much money and he had to help me choose something for taking pictures of wild flowers. He suggested the Zenith because he said (I think this is the correct description) it had a very flat focal plane because the lens was designed for photocopiers. The photos of flowers really were exceptional and it surprised people that such a camera could perform so well.
Back to viewfinders and problems in bright sunlight. I read last year that a better viewfinder was being developed for digital cameras which would get away from the bright sunlight problem of screens. They said it was based on a viewfinder used in video cameras but which was too expensive at the moment for digital compacts. I think it was like looking through a conventional viewfinder but the image was electronic like on the screen. Is this the sort of thing Catty is describing? If so, is it available on compacts as well as SLRs I wonder?
|
Bradders
|
Posted - 22/05/2010 : 12:07
Mr T...I have not come across the "Video camera" type of viewfinder in a still camera yet , but then again I no longer frequent camera shops !....A couple of ideas occur to me though..( and this problem has been around almost since photgraphy was invented)
Firstly ...on the old plate cameras there used to be a folding contraption surrounding the ground glass focussing screen ....When folded out , you looked into a sort of shaded box ( it meant that you didn't have to put the black cloth over your head !)...They were there to help solve this very problem...and I HAVE seen them offered, in miniature form ,for Digital camera screens (they stick on to the surround) ...........Alternatively you could make one of your own from black card.
Secondly....I'm not sure ,but I think some of the digital movie cameras offer quite good "stills" performance ,..It might be worth checking to see what type of viewfinders the have...
They still sell a black studio focussing cloths too !
Edited by - Bradders on 22/05/2010 1:16:42 PM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Bradders
|
Posted - 22/05/2010 : 13:13
I must correct myself !.........This problem and it's solution (partly) has been around a lot longer than Photography.....
Portable camera obscura had a folding device to"Shade" the viewing screen ........
For the design of a "shade" you couldn't do better than consider the folding focus hood on a Rollei Twin lens reflex camera (or a Hasselblad ,and many others) they even come with a magnifying glass built in.
And I just found this on tinternethingy !
http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaview/index.html?adwords_view&gclid=CMCB6tTd5aECFVtb4wodDwmsLg
Edited by - Bradders on 22/05/2010 1:27:28 PM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 06:00
The old Russian Zenith was one of the best starter cameras ever. I had one and they were bullet-proof. Wonderfull value for the money. The word amongst the experts was that the Russian controlled Leica factory had a lot to do with the design. We forget that there were two Leicas for many years, the East German one and the West German.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Tizer
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 12:54
Interesting gadget Bradders. I hope there might be a UK equivalent because as a spectacle wearer I would need to try it out.
|
Bradders
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 14:56
Hello Stanley ....I think you are thinking of Zeiss Jena (DDR)and Zeiss West...There was a BIG difference in quality (and price)
Ernst Leitz were always based in Wetzlar...With off-shoots in Canada , USA, Portugal and lately Solms
Many Russian Cameras were direct copies of Leica models(from the earliest Zorkys) although the Kiev WAS a copy of the Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinder camera
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
catgate
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 16:33
It seems to me to be difficult to pin down precisely what the initials SLR really define, if anything, in connection to view finders.
The Rolleicord, and the more expensive Rolleiflex, were 6 x 6 cm. TLR and both had a horizontal shaded viewfinder. (As far as I am aware the "cord" never had the very rare interchangable lenses that were available for some very expensive "flex" models.}
For a number of years I owned a rather nice Reflex Korelle SLR 6 x 6, which was one of the early German SLRs, and had Tessar lens. The lens was screw fitting, but I never found a long focus (or short) lens with the appropriate thread. This camera had the same kind of viewfinder to be found on the Rollei..
I once met a fellow at a vintage car meeting at Oulton Park who coveted my Korelle so much that he offered me an exchange for an Agiflex 6 x 6 SLR with a tele. lens and a closeup lens. I am sure the Agiflex was a post war reparation copy of the Korelle, although the lens was not a Tessar. One thing that was available for the later Agiflex was a pentaprism view finder to make it eye-level and do away with the shaded horizontal screen. But with or without the pentaprism they were designated as SLR.
We had one or two of the cheaper end of Olympus 35 mm, OM range but they were still called SLR.
What is visible in the "eye level viewer" of a modern digital SLR seems to be something of a mystery to me. I can view a picture or a movie held in memory through the viewfinder or the small rear screen at the touch of a button. I can also view a cine through the lens as I take it, which I would not be able to do if there was a flip -up mirror involved somewhere between view finder and the focal plain.
This leads me to suspect that what I see in the view finder is electronically processed rather than "nature in the raw".
But who knows?
Every silver lining has a cloud.
|
tripps
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 19:13
Does it have to be so complicated? here's my method - never fails.
1. Switch on camera
2. Turn little wheel on top until heart symbol lines up with marker.
3. Remove lens cover. (There's a message in case you forget).
4. Point at target. Look at picture at back of camera.
5 Tell any kids present to say cheese.
6. Press button on top at right hand side.
Simples.
|
Bradders
|
Posted - 23/05/2010 : 20:02
Tripps you are right..It doesn't HAVE to be complicated...that can take the pleasure away from making pictures......
Mr C you are correct too.......many cameras that only have a SINGLE lens are called SLR ......But Single Lens Relex refers to viewing your subject THROUGH THE "TAKING" LENS .prior to making the exposure...The TRUE SLR will have a half silvered or a moving mirror to puts that image onto a sreen via a pentaprism (otherwise it would be reversed)and they have been around for a lot longer than people think, in all sorts of formats ....and more lately in Digital....
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 24/05/2010 : 04:59
You're right Brad, it was Zeiss. When I sold all my cameras I kept a couple of Nikkormats and the best of the lens. I've got a bunch of Tri-X in the fridge, must give them a trot out...... In some ways I like the Nikkormat better than the 'F', I think they might last me out.....
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Photography and camera advice
