What a strange piece of technology this "Live View LCD" is...the user manually selects a menu setting to raise the SLR mirror so the LCD can display a live view from the CMOS sensor. Why don't digital SLRs do away with the mirror entirely and simply feature a LCD and viewfinder that simply displays the live view from the CMOS or CCD sensors? This method seems much more accurate, it's what-you-see-is-what-you-get without the optical distortions of a mirror mechanism, and much more flexible due to the zooming and other live effects you can apply to a digital display.
electronic viewfinders (LCD inside the viewfinder) suck because #1 they have a limited number of pixels and can't show all the detail needed to make sure you're in focus. #2 they become unusable in very dark environments. So if you enjoy taking photos at night like I do, the only way you can frame your shot with an EVF or LCD is if there are points of light to use as a reference.
Optical Viewfinders are often a bit dark, but you can still see through them to properly frame your shot. As long as you can see the scene with the naked eye you can frame it through the optical viewfinder.
"Why don't digital SLRs do away with the mirror entirely and simply feature a LCD and viewfinder that simply displays the live view from the CMOS or CCD sensors?"
Because the mirror is an integral part of the Single Reflex Camera--without the mirror they would no longer be SLRs--google "SLR" for more details.
Some photographers like to actually hold the camera correctly rather than the regular consumers that hold their cameras feet in front of them causing horrid blur.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex @ Feb 21st 2007 11:30PM
What a strange piece of technology this "Live View LCD" is...the user manually selects a menu setting to raise the SLR mirror so the LCD can display a live view from the CMOS sensor. Why don't digital SLRs do away with the mirror entirely and simply feature a LCD and viewfinder that simply displays the live view from the CMOS or CCD sensors? This method seems much more accurate, it's what-you-see-is-what-you-get without the optical distortions of a mirror mechanism, and much more flexible due to the zooming and other live effects you can apply to a digital display.
James Boswell @ Feb 22nd 2007 1:04AM
Noise levels, an active sensor generates heat, which shows up as noise on photos
ScaryFast @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:14AM
electronic viewfinders (LCD inside the viewfinder) suck because #1 they have a limited number of pixels and can't show all the detail needed to make sure you're in focus. #2 they become unusable in very dark environments. So if you enjoy taking photos at night like I do, the only way you can frame your shot with an EVF or LCD is if there are points of light to use as a reference.
Optical Viewfinders are often a bit dark, but you can still see through them to properly frame your shot. As long as you can see the scene with the naked eye you can frame it through the optical viewfinder.
Jus10 @ Feb 22nd 2007 9:16AM
"Why don't digital SLRs do away with the mirror entirely and simply feature a LCD and viewfinder that simply displays the live view from the CMOS or CCD sensors?"
Because the mirror is an integral part of the Single Reflex Camera--without the mirror they would no longer be SLRs--google "SLR" for more details.
john.mcd @ Feb 22nd 2007 12:26PM
Some photographers like to actually hold the camera correctly rather than the regular consumers that hold their cameras feet in front of them causing horrid blur.