I have been involved in photography since the late 1960s. I thoroughly understand the need and reasons for SLR in film cameras.
Somebody, please explain why SLR technology is needed for digital cameras--even high end ones.
If I understand correctly, the image on the LCD display of most digital cameras comes from the sensors located at the film plane, so it truly represents the view through the lens. Why then, go through the complexity of a moving mirror to give an optical view of what the lens will see? I don't get it, unless it is an effort to imply greater quality like the SLRs of the past?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think the quality of the image coming in has to be good first.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

That's a valid question, my DSLR does both. I have found that the external display is only useful in low light (indoors). I was shooting outdoors yesterday and was unable to use the display to even review my photos without finding significant shade. Personally, I am more comfortable composing through the viewfinder; probably because that's how I've beed doing it for the last 40 years.

My biggest beef with DSLRs and other digital cameras is not having comvenient controls for the basic functions (aperture, shutter speed, and focusing). Having to learn how to navigate all the various menus is much harder to me than just knowing how to make a good photograph using those three elementary controls.

Unfortunately, I think only the more esoteric, and highest-priced models have those controls located on the body where they are easily accessible.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

My nikon D5000 is reasonably straight forward to use in semi-manual mode. I does have full manual, but that is too complex to navigate in the field. It is easiest to put it in either shutter priority or aperture priority mode and use a simple thumb wheel to adjust the chosen parameter. I do keep that camera in auto focus mode and just lock in the focus/expose with a partial push of the shutter button before composing. I just ignore the other 95% of the controls most of the time.

I am still more comfortable using one of my old film bodies, but DSLRs can be used in the field if you selectively ignore most of the controls.

I don't like to use the screen on the back because it gives you a disconnect to the subject.
My next purchase is going to be the Fujifilm X100; a camera I have been waiting for a long time: not as bulky as my Canon 5D and having a decent Leica M kind of view-finder.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

That's spiffy! I *almost* had my hands on a Leica digital that was listed in Craigslist for a ridiculously low price. Missed it by minutes. Oh well!

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

Yes there was a Leica M8 body for sale on craigslist for I believe $2400. Very tempting, if not for the Leitz lenses being almost double that price.

I agree 4/3 is a good alternative between a bulky SLR and a compact camera, Olympus makes some very nice cameras these days with the new Pen series.

__________________
1979 Black on Black, 300CD (sold), 1990 Black 300SE, Silver 1989 Volvo 780, 1988 300CE (vanished by the hands of a girlfriend), 1992 300CE (Rescue).

Not being a digital expert frees me from any actual knowledge, so I'll speculate like I know something.

I'll bet many of the concepts we learned using optical/chemical photography is not directly translatable into the digital domain. Things like "film speed" for example. That used to be related to emulsion characteristics. How does that translate into some chip thingie?

So in my world of foil-hattedness, I think that electronics engineers got with human factors types and ask, "How can we easy these old farts into this new type of imagery acquisition?" The answer is to make it as similar to what we know as possible. This is why the high-end cameras look like they have a film advance system and the same general shape as a 'real' camera. I'll bet there is no good reason in electro-optics to make a camera any particular shape other than ease of handling and control of the lens.

What do you think?

You cynic!
That sort of anti-establishment thinking is what lead to my question.
I think the answer is that they could have done it anyway they chose, but suspect that modeling after high end 35mm SLR helped the marketing. After all, they could put interchangeable lenses on a non SLR.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I do remember some pretty strange looking DSLRs on the market about 10-15 years ago; they didn't stay around very long. There are also plenty of non-SLRs available. Here is a $6500 Leica digital rangefinder that will accept a very nice collection of lenses:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=leica+rangefinder&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=4220815264495890541&sa=X&ei=Xo_ITdWcKcTXiALi38ClBQ&ved=0CGUQ8gIwAQ#

And I thought a built in lightmeter was the bee's knees.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

If you want to get serious about it, then select the lenses before the body.

See, I knew there had to be a reason.
So, the image viewed thru the view finder of a DSL is the optical image, right? Couldn't they just as easily use a LCD in the pentaprism so that your eye covering the eyepeice provided the shade to see the image in bright sun light?

See, my questions are not limited to religion and politics. I question most things.

I agree about navigating endless menus. They were obviously designed by a computer geek--no one who ever used a SLR would make the manual, or semi manual controls so difficult to use. I used to think that the linking of aperture and shutter speed on some RFs was the end-all of technology. The angled front shutter release as pioneered by Practika/ Pentacon should become a standard feature--its the most natural position and aids in holding the camera steady.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think there are a couple things going on:

1. The LCD will always lag compared to an optical finder, which is a big deal for certain kinds of photography (sports, action, photojournalism, events).

2. The resolution of an LCD isn't quite as good as an optical finder, although you can partly make up for it by magnifying the image.

3. Body-mounted LCDs get washed out in the sun, and hooded viewfinders end up being about the same size as optical finders in order to see the whole screen, so you lose the image size advantage.

4. Most lenses are designed to focus a certain distance back - they're designed to account for the lens-to-sensor distance of an SLR setup. You can't change this without degrading the image quality (with lens converters) or by redesigning the mount. Most of the professional photographers out there probably aren't willing to invest in a whole new set of lenses just to get an LCD.