I didn't know that this issue existed, but if I had to guess why it exists, it's probably because the live view was a way to get a range finder camera, like my Nikon Coolpix 7900, to have at least a digital SLR feature. A poorman's SLR in effect. I reckon they (the camera makers) thought that they were selling SLR's to pro's mostly, and initially they were, that were used to looking through the viewfinder and wouldn't use the digital live view, and worse, wouldn't accept it.

I agree that it's very useful, and wouldn't want a camera without it either.

My wifes D-50 is the same way. Honestly, at first it was an issue for me but I figured it had to have something to do with the fact that it was SLR.

This was our first SLR so I just went with it. Now I prefer the viewfinder over holding the camera away from me and looking at a LCD. As I grew used to this I also noticed I am holding the camera "more steady?" since its anchored to my face. I have grown used to it and it has becoem a non-issue for me. But, you need to get what you prefer and are most comfortable with so I totally understand.

Pat, I the camera I was using at the Pelican meet was the D-50.

I'm thinking about getting a Canon EOS SLR so that I can use a couple of nice Canon lenses I already own. On the other hand, the 7900 takes pretty nice pictures, I use it at 5 megapixels most of the time, but it will go to 7mp's.

I used to own a Nikon 990, one of the swiveling head models and I miss that feature. I used it to photograph certain hard to get to places on cars, and could see the display while taking the photos at odd angles. I may acquire a used one to have that feature again.

Gizmo's, ain't they grand! :D

I use a D100 a lot, and like Jim, it is a non-issue now. I'm guessing in these "higher-end" cameras, Nikon figures users will be interested in the eye piece. To me, shooting a big camera like this while holding it away so I can see the screen is like shooting a shotgun without holding it against my shoulder.

I'm in the exact same boat. Considering I have a 600-2000mm lense, I really don't want to repurchase that for another make. ;)

Someone came out with a really affordable digitle SLR and it will accept almost evey lense out there. I am not sure how they did it or if I am even right.

Its in a one of our photography magazines, I'll look it up tonight.

Help me out here folks, I'm a total novice when it comes to this stuff. A freind of mine got a D70s last year and my g/f REALLY likes it. I was planning on buying one for her birthday coming up, started looking around, and saw the D80, so I have been debating between the two. I would also like to get a 'very good' all purpose lens to complement the camera. If Wayne did his research, and got blindsided, then I don't stand a chance :). I don't mean to hijack this thread, but can someone offer me some pointers in the 'right' direction?

I have a D70 and don't miss live preview at all. If I want to look at a small LCD, I'll take a point and shoot (which take great pictures). If I want to do some serious macro or other work I take the D70 and put on the appropriate lense. Depending on what you want, the picture quality on the DLSR will look about the same or a lot better than a point and shoot.

Wayne, the other DSLRs mentioned have their own issues. Features aren't really what sells a camera for me these days...they all have more than I want. If live preview is important to you, then you should find one that has it. I think that the Nikon has other advantages and don't miss it at all. Different strokes...

I found this discussion on a photographers' forum, and there are some alternatives:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/468879/0#4038665

Would a right angle viewfinder solve the issue?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1165590239.jpg

We have not even begun to tap into the potential of our D50 my bro in law ran out and bought his g/f a D80 and she has it set to full auto and does not even know what she is doing with it.

Our D50 spends 90% of its time on full Auto too because we are still trying to learn how to set it up right.

All I am trying to say is that you may not need the super duper version when the entry level version might already be way over your head and take years to master.

Thanks guys! I'm very much a 'point & shoot' type of person, but my g/f was/is a photography buff, and will likely use the manual settings. What about a 'good' all purpose lens?

buy this one for the Nikon and you likely won't need anything else for quite some time:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110103nikon18-200vr.asp

SLR - Single Lens Reflex.

Through the viewfinder you are looking at the image the sensor will see (used to be film). A mirror flips up and the image falls on the sensor.

I suppose you could design a camera to see both the optical and electronic image at the same time but there would be trade offs.

Happy D200 owner.

+1

I came to the same conclusions . . .tho' a while back. I was really conflicted about CMOS vs CCD (SLR vs psedo-SLR) I went the route of CCD/psedo-SLR. The large preview screen trumped the the clarity of a true thru-lens optical viewfinder. Furthermore, I can cable my camera into a laptop (live) and use the laptop as a viewfinder . . .and capture ....and camera settings. This means I can put the camera on a pole, or out a window, remote mounted... and still see what I'l get.

Now this remote viewing doen't seem to be a trend yet, but may be a feature to look for.

Just a 'hanging the camera (in hand) out the window' shot @ ~70. (90+ buffets too much for a hand-held clear shot)
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1124048809.jpg

...oh w/ a Minolta Dimage A2 (they don't make them anymore) :(

The 18-200 VR is probably the best answer to that question right now. Huge range, small and light, darn near pro quality. If you take your time and wait, you can pick them up new for $750. Get a USA version new so a 5 year warranty applies vs none at all for used or grey market.

these are pro cameras, or ones modeled after them. looking at a screen to frame a pic is not the best way. if i had to guess, saving battery life is more important.

hell, it is a digital camera! i would estimate that 50% of my good shots are taken with the camera shot from the hip.

Anyone know anything about the Canon Rebel XT?

I'm not sure why a live preview screen is necessary. What kind of photos are you taking? One of the beauties of digital is the ability to edit the image files. I usually shoot with an 18mm wide angle at high-resolution. Many times I don't use a view finder at all. Just point the camera in the general direction of the subject. Then I do all the editing afterwards. If I need to frame something precisely, I want to be looking through the optical viewfinder anyway. About the only time I use long lenses is to get the 'compression' effect.

To answer your question though, it's tough to beat the Olympus 'pro-sumer' line of cameras (E330, E500)! One feature they have that has me considering a switch is the dust-free CCD. That is a MAJOR problem with most digital SLR's, that most people are not aware of. You wind up with tiny black specs all over your images. I use mine (a Fuji S1) in fairly harsh environments and I've got to clean the CCD every 2-3 weeks. It's a bit of a PITA!

hmmm, I'm hearing that one doesn't really need a veiwfinder . . .but if you do, an optical is the way to go.

Well, fwiw, optical vf's are less precise for framing, but more precise for focusing. .. seeing focal length.

It has everything to do with it being an SLR. The digital what not can't read until the mirror moves out of the way.

If I want a preview, I use the smaller camera. I like my Nikon since it's fast and I had useda 6006 for years. Low learning curve. The D50 didn't allow me to adjust te F-stops IIRC. I borrowed a friends and found that irritating, but I got some GOOD photos just the same.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1150337676.jpg

My wife has one. Had the original Rebel before. The XT is much faster and better all around but the body is very small. OK for her, but it feels too small in my hands.

With a good lens it takes amazing photos. But unless you're a fanatic, you buy this level of camera for the features, as Wayne discovered.

FWIW, a pro (automotive photography) I know recently emailed that pros are dropping Nikon...Canon is the name for digital work.
(edit) since I find myself not going to P-car club events these days, I decided to skip buying a digital camera...think I want a nice custom pool cue more.

I can confirm this sentiment from a couple of friends who are very serious digital photographers.

My old Olympus E-20N is a true digital TTL SLR and has live-preview. Funny thing is that I NEVER use it! I guess coming from traditional 35mm SLR's, old habits (like relying on the viewfinder) die hard. Taking pictures while looking at the camera's screen just doesn't feel right (I also have trust issues with these DSLR LCD screens). Battery life is another factor as well.

+1!

I'm guessing wayne uses it to take pics for his books. So imagine him finding creative places to set the cam so it will capture what he needs it to see. From wherever that is there may or may not be room for a person to get behind it and look through a viewfinder. Also the extra time it takes to get behind it/adjust/get behind it/adjust/etc....

Just a guess, but that's what popped into my head.

not so sure about that. The main dogma i hear these days is Canon for sports/high speed (long lenses) and Nikon for macro. I don't know anybody who has sold their Nikon to buy a Canon.

I have an XT. I'm 6'2" and 200# with average size hands/build. I heard/read a lot of people say that the XT is too small. I found that I grew accustomed to it pretty quickly. I'd have loved to have the 20D, but when I bought I just couldn't justify the extra $. I love my Canon. Another good place to go for Canon info is here.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=9

Also, you can do a search, there was a good digital SLR thread here several months back that addressed the D70 vs Rebel XT thing.

Basically, I'd say that the D70 and Rebel XT are comparable cameras. Each has something that it manages to trump the other with. Ultimately I've got a history with Canon cameras, so I went with the Canon, but I don't think you'd go wrong with the D70. Now there is the D80, the D50, the new Rebel XTi, the 30D and the 5D (sigh, full frame). How much do you want to spend?

Wayne, don't blame Nikon because you didn't read the reviews :p

If you are shooting at odd angles, then you need a display that also swivels and rotates. My Canon A620 is great for that type of thing. And it takes great photos. But not as good as my D70. Everything in life is a compromise.

You might want to check out the Panasonic DMC-FZ50. I have the FZ20 and it is great for a wide range of applications. Mine has a fixed LCD but it looks like the 50 swivels out. The upside it is great at the track and does decent macro. The downside is that it is noisy in low light and at high iso, so if you shoot a lot indoors that could be an issue.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

Well, I wasn't confused/disappointed but then again I knew what I was getting into. The basic design obviates live preview unless you play tricks.

The truth of the matter is that most people don't really need an SLR. Most of my favorite work has been done with a Canon 5MP Elph. But I really like macro and once you slap a 105mm Nikon macro lense on a good body you can't go back, at least for some shots.

Check out the Panasonic. Great camera that has a huge zoom range. If you don't need that, any of the high-end point-and-shoot cameras that have a flip/swivel LCD will work great for you. You just won't look like a pro squinting through the viewfinder ;)

The plus side is that the non preview cameras can take up to 700 pics on a single battery charge - preview cams cant do that. I am on my 3rd Canon (30D) now and just love it. No normal digital can start up as fast or shoot as fast. You can go out all day and not carry extra memory anddont have to worry about battery. I also have a small point and shoot Sont that I put in my pockey for the casual point and shoot times.

I have a Sony F828, great for using waist high like a twin lens reflex-see the screen (switches from screen to electronic viewfinder) - terrific for over the crowd shots and candids.

Since then I bought D70 and D200 Nikons - for super fast shutter repeat shots in motor sport and interchangeable lenses. Wish they did video like the Sony though.

LOL, it's exactly like that. You're supposed to know it.

This something like being a muscle car guy, buying a 911 and hating it because it's not good in the 1/4 mile, it's hard to drive and doesn't have cupholders.

It's good for what it does, which is not what you want it to do. ;)

I love my D70, it's extremely fast, I can take photos of my son who's 19 months and doens't stop moiving. I get great depth of field to blur out stuff in the background (our house is a mess - 19 month old son ;) ) I can fool around with the zoom and take the photos I want over and over fooling with the settings until my wife yells at me.

If I want to have someone take my photo, I put it on full auto and let them fire away. If I want to take photos of my engine to post here, it stays in the bag and I use my wife's camera..some Casio thing.

I disagree that preview "before" you shoot is one of the points of a digital camera. All I want to know about is if I got the shot. When I got my Olympus in 2000, it took me forever to use the screen...people who saw me using it must have thought I was crazy!! :)

I do...and he's been shooting cars for a living for several decades.
(edit) That's why I asked his opinion on what camera to buy. But Gee, I guess I should have asked Notstatic instead? :confused:

From the link I posted earlier, the Olympus E-330 has the feature you're looking for, perhaps other Olympus models as well. Also, the Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro has it. Also the Canon D20a, but I think that's discontinued.

Wayne, as mentioned above SLR cameras do not have a preview because of how the mechanicals work.. The reviews might have incorrectly assumed that this was understood broadly. It took me a couple of days to get used to that with my D50.

For in car, tight spot use get one of those where the LCD swivels like Todd mentioned. Even better is to get the Nikon S10 where the entirre lens barrel rotates.

Didn't say that. Just saying that I hear different dogma and don't know anyone that has sold their Nikon rigs for Canon. And since I work with "the industry" I know a fair amount of photog/graphics guys. But I'll defer to your single data point SmileWavy

Wayne - for 'drive-by shooting' like you describe, a live viewfinder is essential. I forgot about the 600 images you took at Rennsport :)

The Canon guys have been predicting Nikon's downfall since the release of the very cool F1 in 1971 (it used this celluloid-like material to record images - I think they called it film? ;) ).

Speaking of film cameras, there are some absolutely INCREDIBLE deals on eBay right now. The market is officially dead on film cameras. I still use my Nikon N90s and Leica M6 occasionally. I'm thinking of picking up an F5 - they're going for $400 in like new condition!!! Alum alloy body, titanium viewfinder, etc. These had an MSRP of $3350!!!

Word of caution. Nikon is very clear that warrenties do not apply for cameras bought on Ebay.

The feature of "live preview" in a SLR is very unusual.

As already mentioned, in the traditional SLR, light goes through the lens, reflects off a mirror, and then to the prism and viewfinder eyepiece. When you press the shutter, the mirror swings up and out of the way, the light goes directly to the shutter that covers the film, the shutter opens to expose the film to the light, and the picture is taken, after which the mirror wings back down. That's why, since film SLRs were invented some 60+ years ago, the viewfinder goes black for a fraction of a second as you take the picture. You cannot view the image at the exact same instant that you take the picture.

About 30 years ago, there were a few film SLRs which allowed you to view the image exactly when the picture is taken. They used a mirror that was only partly silvered, so part of the light is reflected to the prism and part goes straight to the shutter and film. The mirror is fixed in place; it does not swing up and down. This was done to permit taking very rapid consecutive pictures using a motor drive. For example in the 1970s Canon had a special high-speed F that took 5 frames per second (if I recall right) using this design. These were used by some sports photographers. The disadvantage was that less light got to the prism and to the film, so the image looked dimmer through the viewfinder and you had to use either faster film or a longer exposure. The fixed part-silvered mirror designs became unnecessary as the camera companies learned to make light mirrors that moved faster. By the 1980s, conventional SLRs with swinging mirrors could take 5 fps.

Now step into the digital SLR era. Almost every digital SLR uses the traditional swinging mirror design, and the image sensor is simply placed where the film used to be, behind the shutter. Thus light cannot reach the image sensor until the mirror swings up and the shutter opens. This makes it quite difficult to have a so-called "live preview" feature, where the image is visible on an LCD screen before the picture is actually taken.

There is one digital SLR that does have live preview, the Olympus E-volt 330. See a review with an explanation of this feature at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E330/E330A.HTM You'll see that it was pretty complicated for Olympus to add this feature, and there are some tradeoffs. The viewfinder is dimmer, and in one mode there is no autofocus (but there is another mode, which preserves autofocus).