What about the Leica M8?

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/Lei...ntview-001.jpg

It's just a couple of dollars more...

Oly E330. I've got one, and one reason why I did was for the live view feature, the only DSLR with live view and removeable lenses. That said, it's not the perfect camera. No company has produced the perfect DSLR yet. The high ISO images (ISO 800+) are soft and noisy and the shutter response is not as fast as Canon or Nikon, thus their advantage in sports photography. At lower ISO speeds, it's more than enough. Some do value high ISO images though, and it was the high ISO noise issue that one prominant photo website based their review on. However, Oly 4/3rds system lenses, though limited in numbers at this time, are excellent. Even the cheap Oly kit lenses are sharper, have less distortion than the kit lenses supplied with Nikons and Canons. It's a versatile camera and allows recording some scenes not otherwise convenient. Wayne might recognize this one:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1165655595.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1165655282.jpg

Prices are dropping which makes this more attractive. When introduced early this year, it was $1000 for the body. I heard Adorama has excess inventory and is currently selling the body for $500+. On Ebay, Cameta Camera is the main source for Oly cameras at discount prices.

Sherwood

Wayne, Nikon's flagship of the Coolpix series, the 8800 has what you want except for removable lenses. The ED glass in the lense the camera is equipped with should produce very good images, I'd suggest you take a look.

Hi Wayne,

have you looked at the Canon Powershot S3IS? It's so much cheaper than a DSLR, and it has live preview and a rotating LCD screen. It's certainly worth a look.

Steves digicams review

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s3is.html

Like its predecessor the S2, the PowerShot S3 IS is a very capable entrant in the megazoom digicam market. With 6-megapixels of resolution, a high-quality image-stabilized 36-432mm zoom lens, very good image quality and industry-leading support for moving images, the S3 IS offers a compelling combination of quality and versatility. It will please both the beginner and the advanced photographer with its consistently well-exposed and sharp results. The S3 IS presents a worthy alternative for consumer digicam users considering an upgrade to a consumer dSLR. While its image quality, responsiveness and viewfinder quality are not quite up to dSLR standards, the S3's versatility, especially its movie mode and articulating LCD viewfinder, is unmatched by any dSLR available today. If you have a need for megazoom focal lengths, the S3 IS also represents a terrific value; while dSLR image-stabilized long focal length lenses sell for thousands of dollars, the S3 IS can be had for under $500, image-stabilized zoom lens included. Please have a look at our sample pictures to see what this camera is capable of.

Yeah, I have to disagree. Yes, they are not perfect "consumer" cameras. However, they are more of a camera "enthusiast" piece. I love my D70. Took me 10 min to learn from my 6006. No wacky menus, no weird button presses. And it's FAST...really, really fast.

But, as I have said it before:
Digital SLR = 911
Regular Digital Camera = Toyota/anything else.

Many of us waited for a faster, better digital camera. Perhaps one of the other high digitals would have suited my purposes, but this is all a case of you have to know what you are getting. It comes down to marketing in this case...if you know what you're getting you're fine. If you don't...you're not going to be happy.

Wayne, I couldn't agree more, it's a craze indeed. SLR, whether digital or not is a "specialized concept". General market can be very well satisfied with any high end/high resolution digital camera.
I view it as more of digital benefits SLR than SLR benefits digital.

I'm no expert, but I have taken about 40 - 50,000 pictures a year for the last 4 years - 100 times what I did predigital, mostly kids in various sports at school where I teach. Here's my 2 cents.

Single Lens Reflex cameras should be purchased for the lenses they use, not the camera body itself. The camera will be obsolete in 3 years but the lenses are good for 10+

Nikon lenses are generally known for their accurate reproduction of color, especially human skin, hair eyes etc. - portrait cameras deluxe.

Cannon lenses are faaaast. Ergo they are known to be great for sports and action shots.

After using using a viewfinder for a while you learn to have "frog eyes". Each eye learns to work independently. You don't close your "other" eye as it is looking at the big picture, while your camera eye is looking at the shot. You just can't do this with an LCD. I also take a number of shots where I just hold the camera sitting in the grass on the ground or up in the air, as high as I can reach. A quick check tells me if I need to make an adjustment and shoot again. Who needs an LCD view? If the shot needs to be reshot, you've only wasted a few electrons.

What Wayne is suggesting (do away with optical viewfinder, use electronic viewfinder or LCD display) kind of makes sense, but there's a problem.

The problem is that you are not actually seeing what the image sensor sees.

Instead, you're looking at a tiny display - from <0.25 sq inch (electronic viewfinder) to 4 sq inch (display on the camera body). The resolution is low (typical 200K pixel, or less than 640x480). The refresh rate is slow. The color depth is limited. It may be washed out by ambient light (if on camera body).

So with the electronic viewfinder approach, you're seeing a very degraded version of what the image sensor sees.

If you have a high-quality image sensor, an optical viewfinder (i.e. SLR) is showing you something a lot closer to what the image sensor sees, than what the electronic viewfinder shows.

I think the electronic viewfinder is fine if you are doing documentary-style shots - e.g. disassembly of a 911 engine, kid's first steps, etc.

It may not be fine if you are doing other sorts of photography.

having a EVF (electronic view finder - LCD) also often gives a live histogram. Where as the SLR's leave you clueless to clipping issues.

SLR's generally don't do video either.

I agree with Wayne on this one. For certain applications a DSLR is NOT the best tool.

MY DSLR has a histogram, I use it often. You just can't see it until after you take a shot. What's so bad about taking a "preshot" of the intended image? Seems like a non- issue to me, electrons are cheap!

The only time I don't use a DSLR is when I need the portability or the low cost of of a pocket camera.

Time.

yep, electrons are cheap, but time is not.

Woulld you accept focus as a feature that required taking a preshot? .. . .adjust . . .preshot . .adjust . ..

Yes I know that using the focus example is eccentric, wrt clipping issues. But there is no way that a "preshot/adjust" situation is equal to a dynamic/adjustment.

I *get* that a whole lot of people have sunk big buck into their DSLR's ...and thus what them to be w/o ANY short comings. The thing is, in this highly dynamic product-evolution (revolution?) alll you can do is pick a day to pick and a feature set (including price). . .because tomorrow it changes.

there is another issue, but maybe it is just force of habit. There is a physcial aspect to getting close to the camera and looking through a viewfinder that doesn't happen with a display. An analogy is the difference between playing upright and electric bass. Both have 4 strings (or 5, or...), both are tuned the same. But the upright requires a much more physical interaction with the instrument. Same with a viewfinder. A display makes you have distance from the camera. Not saying one is better, but they are different and have zero to do with technology.

Prosumer digicams all seem to have EFV's -- allowing old-school VF, Camera LCD VF, or on some, remote VF. It all depends on the technology. ;)

Eli has a good point here. My needs could have certainly been covered by another good digital (except speed I suppose) but the D70 provided me a 0 degree learning curve and I could reuse my 70-300 lens. :)

I was willing to accept the loss of "in the camera" image adjusting and the loss of a preview window for easy adjustments on the front end and no learning.

prosumer digicams generally have crappy EFVs, and the balance and feel of the camera is different than an SLR. But I suppose that is technology too...

I have 4 different cameras (Canon SD500 Elph, Canon A620, Panasonic FZ20, Nikon D70) and I take different ones for different conditions/needs. No one camera can do everything that I need it to...surprise. But forcing the kitchen sink into things and trying to make a product all things to all people is a mistake. You have to compromise somewhere. And with a DSLR, I think the image and glass quality are the issues...leave the rest of the "features" to other cameras if it will compromise the important things.

Assumes you have a static subject in static lighting and thus all the time in the world to take a shot, peer at histogram, take another shot, etc.

Also, with digital and a big card, I just keep shooing and toss the photos that weren't right later. I don't do a lot of fiddling with the camera or checking histograms, etc. If I'm shooting raw I'll fix it later. And invariably I'll shoot a bunch of shots from slightly different angles and lighting, then pick the one that works. For me, live preview is not a necessary feature but I understand why people like it. And like I said, my A620 is great for getting shots that I can't "see" like holding the camera over my head, etc.

"... compromise the important things."

I thought Wayne did a great job of outlining the important (to him) things. And, I can see that, for his purposes, a DSLR is not the best balance of features.

When answering the question of best balance of features one really needs to consider the weight of the needs.

FWIW, At one time I was very conflicted about which type of prosumer technology to buy. (CCD or CMOS) As others have said, the DSLR's (CMOS) are the comfortable transition from 35mm SLR's. But for my purposes in the feature war (of the "important things" - including image quality, crappy EFVs... ) the digi won. YMMV --the old school paradigm still has a place. (obviously)

he did. Which is why I don't understand why he bought one ;)

But he then states that live preview is a critical feature to him, and how in the world can DSLRs not have it. Well, they don't. For a lot of good reasons. Hence, buy a different type of camera. But the 911 engine analogy is pretty good...kinda like buying a 911 then complaining because the engine is in the back, and that Porsche should change it because having it in the front is a critical feature that everyone needs...

fwiw, I have been told (I haven't looked into it) that some DSLR's can go into a shlocky 'preview mode' . .. the VF is disabled (mirror up) and the camera goes into a psedo-pict-taking mode, to display on the LCD . . .but no card-write until the shutter is pressed. (again - so I have been told)

Rube would be proud. ;)

I don't imagine most people even understand how valuable raw images are. Whodathunk you could adjust white balance, exposure value, etc after you snapped the shot? Its almost magic! Somebody start a poll as to how may have shot raw and adjusted later.

I do mostly sports stuff and don't have static anything, but I know that those dinky LCD screens sure don't show me anwhwere near what I see looking thru the SLR viewfinder nor do they show me a significant fraction of what I see later on my computer. If you really want to see better you would need to bring along your notebook computer or a remote monitor hooked up to the camera.

We just spent soem time this afternoon adjusting photos taken from an Airshow we were at a couple of weeks ago.

Like Nostatic, we have 2 camera's a D50 and a Casio Exilim each one for a different task.

We used the D50 at the air show because we wanted some pictures to put on the wall of our older sons room in our vacation home. He has a whole Plane theme going in there.

We just shot and shot, over 100 pictures in about 1.5 hours, then we went home and cropped, adjusted, and photoshopped people out of them to our liking.

Why preview to death snap the pic that looked good on the little preview screen only to find out later it was not what you wanted? We snap 5+ pics of the same shot then throw out the ones we do not like.

Nikon D200 and Casio Z1000 - they do it all for me at 10 megapixels + each.

Great pictures from a pocketable Casio with no viewfinder - just lcd screen to a super fast Nikon slr with wide to extreme telephoto ability.

Guess which one is in my pocket 24/7.

You just described my camera (Olympus E-20n), well maybe except for the "shlocky" part. :D

Even though it's near-obsolete in digital camera tech terms, it's a kinda cool design. It's a spit prism with no mirror (which eliminates any "mirror slap" noise/vibration). This also give the camera the "live preview" function that at least partially inspired this thread, and it does so without disabling the viewfinder:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1165814891.jpg
That is my approach as well, especially with a digi. I am more of a "I'll fix it in post" type of guy, and don't worry about "pre-production" stuff as much.

I never have time to be fiddling with settings or looking at histograms, especially with fast moving subjects. Compared to an optical viewfinder, an LCD isn't very useful for any rapid panning and/or quick subject/focus acquisition either.

Plus, I like to see where my meter readings are being taken via the viewfinder (I'm a big fan of spot/center-weight metering + exposure lock). That's primarily why I never use my LCD screen for "live-preview". The other benefit of course is longer battery life. If it's at a weird angle, I'll just shoot a bunch of frames "blind" (no viewfinder, no LCD screen, paparazzi-style :D).

I still don't "get" these electronic viewfinders either, especially on a "pro-sumer" level (quasi-DSLR) and up camera. I mean at those price-points, it should have both IMO (optical viewfinder with metering/focusing screen + a live-preview LCD screen).

edit: spelling

Also, I've had shots on my various non-slrs that looked *great* on the lcd. When I downloaded them and looked at them on a bigger screen, it just wasn't happening. And vice versa. To me it is just a quick and dirty reference and nothing more. Useful for framing a shot when the camera has to be away from your face, but that's about it.

RE: LCD screens:
"Useful for framing a shot when the camera has to be away from your face, but that's about it."

That's exactly the idea - at least for a swiveling LCD screen. An "optimum" camera angle may not be convenient with the location of one's face. Guess where my chin would be had I framed this shot through a regular viewfinder?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1165818878.jpg

Not that this photo is that great, but if there was a 10' mud puddle, a pile of horse manure or a wall at the camera position, I promise this photo wasn't going to be shot looking through the viewfinder.

In the majority of photo images, the camera is about 5.5' from the ground. Why? That's the height of most eyeballs when standing up, but why not compose from waist level or 20" from ground level? Having more options to frame a shot makes it possible to create more interesting photos.

Sherwood

how is it "feature removal"? It was never a feature on SLRs, and isn't on most DSLRs. I understand all your points Wayne, but you seem really pissed off about this and I don't quite get it. DSLRs don't work like you want. Fine, don't buy them. You're not a viewfinder guy. Fine, don't use it.

Most of the time with my DSLR I don't light, don't fiddle, just frame, push the button and shoot. Most of the time I get what I want. If I need to shoot in odd places I use a different camera. Right tool for the right job. There is no way that a p'n's is going to be able to get the same shot I can get with my D70 with a 105mm macro.

Wow, a digi with a CMOS. I didn't know such a thing existed.

...looks like a really great pick.

I don't think that they are the next step at all. I would NEVER recommend a digital SLR to someone that didn't already have an SLR. It is (again) like giving a 911 to a non experienced driver.

A true evolution in digital cameras would be a consumer friednly body that allows the attachment of existing SLR lenses, flashes, etc.

YES! For garage photography, this is the single most important feature. But who needs a dSLR for shooting car parts? Why not use a dSLR for shows, whole car photos, etc and a more suitable camera for close up parts shots.

My wife is a dSLR junkie, but I still swear by my old, greasy, dinged up Nikon 990 for mundane stuff.

Wayne, it's a common misconception, for which only consumer is to blame. SLR (regardless of being digital or 35mm) is a specialized, purpose built function, not a "next big step" in technology.
Camera companies are only trying to keep up with the demand being driven by uneducated consumer wishing to attain what they believe is the "next big thing".

buying an slr for what is essentially a 'still life' photography of stationary cars/engines is like getting a cupcar to go drag racing. they have great point-n-shoot cameras these days w/ huge 3-3.5" lcd view screens...

Yeah, another 990 user :)

I still use my 990 for web shots, excellent macros and getting another axis with that swiveling lens on a tripod is excellent for close up work. Much easier to set up and shoot than my DSLR.

DSLR for speed and light, P&S for convinence.

Wayne
Check out the Nikon S10; it is the current gen of the Coolpix 990. Macro down to 4cm, yes that is cm, swivle lens and small enough to carry in a coat pocket and get into tight spaces.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25555

On the Sony, you might be able to get a Macro filter to bring the focal length down. btw it is not a Ziess lens, it is Ziess lens coating. Creative marketing on Sony's part ;)

Just bought a Nikon D200 and 18-200VR lens a few months ago. I'm very happy with it, but my photo experience goes back to the 1970's with a manual Nikkormat and Kodachrome 25(!) & 64, so the settings don't worry me (went to Nikon FE, N70, now this). Nicest thing is that I can fiddle with things, see what I shot, and fiddle some more, making really nice photos much easier and less risky than with film. After just a few months I'm thinking of Ebaying my N70 and 28-200 lens, as prints from iPhoto are easy too.....

Best is that like the N70, all the auto features let my 5 & 10 year olds and non-photobug wife get point and shoot pictures that look great too. Because of this, I finally show up in some photos!!!

It's a pretty steep learning curve, and if you want point and shoot, it's overkill. I like it, but wouldn't have gotten such a complicated camera for the others in my family.....I second the thought that if you don't already have an SLR, you don't want a digital one....

Wayne, I don't think it's so much a feature they don't think is neccessary... I think it's actually impossible to do on an SLR.

See, the way the SLR works is that there is a mirror in front of the sensor that blocks the CCD. When a picture is shot, the mirror flips up out of the way so that the CCD is now looking through the lense. Then the mirror flips back down, blocking the CCD.

Non SLR digicams do not do that.

If I were you, I'd look at a nice SLR-like digicam. I have a nice Kodak unit (DX-7590, 5Mpix) that takes AMAZING photos in all but really dark settings. And it will give you 'video' output from the LCD so you can do weird angle shots and such.

Now that would be cool; should be easy to do with existing technology.

I see your point.
The big advantage of SLR going digital (at least to me) is having the ability to take 100s of shots at a time without worrying about film. :)

To summarize

You flip the mirror up because you want all the light that comes through the lens to hit the sensor (every last photon). You can see that a permanent splitter would result in a darker viewfinder and less sensitivity.

If you could get the resolution you need to set subtle focus / depth of field issues with an LCD display on the camera you would not need an optical viewfinder. I don't think one currently exists.

If you don't need this resolution then an SLR is not what you want.