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.