Still photography

Post by **Actor** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:06 pm

Here's a question about digital cameras. What is a digital SLR? The best I can figure out is that it's an SLR camera with a chip where the film would be, complete with a focal plane shutter and a mirror that flips up. If so then I'm wondering why? The reason for the SLR arrangement in a film camera is through the lens viewfinding. But even in a cheap digital camera the viewfinder is showing you what the chip sees, right? So you're TTL, right? Why go through the trouble of covering the chip with a mechanical shutter and installing a reflex viewing system? :?

To speculate on the answer to my own question, I'm guessing that there is some advantage to not continuously bombarding the chip with light and allowing light to hit it only when you want to actually make an exposure.

Post by **mattias** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:44 pm

Actor wrote:But even in a cheap digital camera the viewfinder is showing you what the chip sees, right? So you're TTL, right?

yes, but seeing an image on a groundglass is very different from looking at an lcd display. i don't know which is better, it's easier to focus on a ground glass and your peripheral vision is blocked which helps with framing, while on the other hand with an lcd you can hold the camera away from your eye which helps positioning, plus you will see pretty much exactly what you'll get which helps with exposure for example. in the end i think it's just that those of us who are used to the ground glass obviously want to continue shooting that way. arri's new digital movie camera has a ground glass reflex viewfinder, even though videographers have been used to crt's and lcd's for years, just to suit the needs of film photographers. it even flickers as you roll. :-)

/matt

Post by **flatwood** » Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:56 pm

Not only the ground glass focusing but dont forget the satisfying sound of the mirror opening and closing. Prior to the DSLR my digital still camera beeped. I was almost embarrassed and people would stare at me thinking I was backing up. Now with my DSLR on continuous shooting I can trigger a nice burst of six frames or so. Ahhh, reminds me of the motor drive days.

Post by **wado1942** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:40 am

LCDs are no good for focusing unless they're huge and extremely high resolution. So to augment what Mattias said, ground glass is a huge advantage.

Now one thing I thought would be cool is to combine a digital camera with a film camera. Put a CCD behind the beam splitter that will emulate the film speed and shutter speed, storing them on a card. That way you can see right away if you need to redo the picture or if you're good on the spot but still have the quality and lattitude of whatever film you're using. Has this been done? I think it'd be great to combine the convinience of a digital camera but actually have a film print from negative. You'd also be able to give clients/friends a proof while waiting for the prints from the lab. It'd be just like having a video tap on a Panavision cam but for still pictures.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:22 am

cool idea. in motion photography it would be called a video tap. :-) some high end cameras have a matrix metering system that are rgb and so high res that it's pretty much a digital camera. the nikon f5 for example has a 67x15 pixel ccd (1 kilopixel, how about that?). i'm sure some newer cameras have even larger ccd's. it would be tremendously cool if you could somehow hook up a monitor and see these images. has it been done?

/matt

Post by **bakanosaru** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:34 am

Didn't Kodak have a film camera with a LCD on the market briefly as some kind of transitional product.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:16 am

bakanosaru wrote:Didn't Kodak have a film camera with a LCD on the market briefly as some kind of transitional product.

Yep.

Roger

Post by **sk360** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:36 am

LCDs are no good for focusing unless they're huge and extremely high resolution. So to augment what Mattias said, ground glass is a huge advantage.

Indeed. LCD's are better for gauge how the pictures looks then actually focusing the lens. That's why I like the Canon 20D so much as not only does it have a very well callibrated LCD ( it's even better then the 5D's) but you can view the color values of each image with the camera's Histrogram.

Post by **filmamigo** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:24 pm

The only thing I have seen like this is the Zigview:

http://www.secu-line.com/

It seems like a nicely-thought-out version of the video tap that clips to your viewfinder.

I don't think it supports capturing the image -- that would be cool. But the advanced model does have all kinds of crazy features, like intervalometer, bulb settings, motion-detection shutter release...

I wouldn't mind adding one of these to my Nikon F80. A cool mix of modern film SLR with digital, and some of the benefits of a waist-level finder. (Without the vertigo-inducing reversal that you see in a TLR viewfinder.)

Post by **Angus** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:36 am

wado1942 wrote:Both my 35mm cameras have mechanical shutters. The battery only controls the light meter in both. Though I have no autofocus, that's something I don't need.

That is exactly how I feel. I own a couple of Nikon f-series bodies which of course won't work without the (large) battery...and they're quieter than purely mechanical shutters but that's about the only potential advantage. With my Prakticas, if the battery dies I can still "fly on manual" with the proviso that I think the only available shutter speed is 1/75s. As long as one isn't shooting in very low light or fast sports (ie for general conditions) that means even if the battery fails and I don't have a replacement to hand I can continue shooting.

As for Autofocus....invention of evil, I say. Can't ever see any reason to use it with an SLR.

Post by **Actor** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:11 pm

I bought my first digital still camera a couple of days ago, a Pentax K100D, and gave it to my wife for St. Valintine's day. (That way the camera is "hers" or "the family's" and I don't catch a lot of flak for spending a few hundred on "yet another camera." Meanwhile, I'll still get to use it. :twisted: )

It's not only the most expensive (still) camera I've ever bought, it's also the most complicated with a manual of almost 200 pages. We still haven't gotten through it. :?

I'll definitely be making some side-by-side comparisons of digital vs. film.

Post by **wado1942** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:14 pm

Cool, can you post them when done?

Post by **mattias** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:09 am

Angus wrote:As for Autofocus....invention of evil, I say. Can't ever see any reason to use it with an SLR.

really? autofocus is absolutely mandatory on an slr in my opinion. or do you only shoot stationary objects on a wide lens? news and action sports photographers (i.e. me) literally make money every day because of autofocus. of course being able to lock it as well as turning it off completely and having access to a real focusing ring on the lens is equally mandatory.

/matt

Post by **Superbus_** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:57 am

I just hate the autofocus and never use it.

What about the sport photos of the 50's when autofocus was not invented yet?
Were they shooting only stationary objects? I don't think so...

Post by **david** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:03 pm

Superbus_ wrote:What about the sport photos of the 50's when autofocus was not invented yet?

some were out of focus I guess

autofocus is not that different than manual focus imo. Set it to center point focusing and half press the button. It's fast and accurate with any modern slr or dslr.

anyway in the end it only depends on what you're shooting.I agree with Mattias when he says it's a must for sports and news, but when I'm doing street photography I'd rather prefer to shoot 400asa at f11/16 with a 35/40mm lens set to hyperfocal. That's even faster focusing.

david