Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On 2/24/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Johnny Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Did you also notice that the live view reflects any exposure
>>> compensation that's applied...?
>> Exactly what Oly got wrong with the E-330.
>>
> Of course, Moose, I am inclined to disagree with you on this subject.
>
Quelle surprise. :-)
> To characterize the first iteration of a technical achievement like
> Live View as "wrong" because it doesn't have a feature you think might
> be nice to have seems niggardly.
>
A couple of things. First, live view is not new at all. Full time,
general purpose live view on a DSLR is a great achievement that very
much excited me when the E-330 came out, but jillions of digicams havel
ive view.
- The non DSLR digicams I've used all roughly approximate the exposure
that will end up being taken. Change the compensation, and the
brightness of the image seen on live view changes (Leaving aside
"gaining up" in very dim light/). To my mind, this direct, visual
representation of what I'm actually going to get is a good thing. I
don't know, but I'll bet Oly digicams do the same thing. So the E-330
implementation seems to be a conscious decision to move away from the
norm of live view implementations and retain the non-electronic SLR view
model.
Second, in my personal world, direct sensory feedback of what I'm doing
is better than something that needs to go through cognitive processes
and depend on memory. One of the minor reasons I don't like rangefinder
cameras is that I'm so capable of forgetting to take off the lens cap
and taking pictures of its back side, the cleverly designed XA excluded.
I've loved pentaprism SLRs since the first time I used one, but there is
a drawback similar in nature to the lens cap issue with rangefinders.
SLRs happily let me forget the camera settings I changed for some
purpose or other and foolishly go ahead and mis-expose as many images as
I want.
Sure, there are various displays of various sorts, depending on age and
brand, to let me know what's happening, but I'm so drawn to and engaged
in the visual image I'm looking at that I'm all too capable of not
noticing. I suppose it's a very individual thing, but it's the way I am
and the way I work. I suppose it's the reason I really don't notice the
difference between an OM-1 or 4 or 300D or 5D viewfinder. At first,
sure, but after a few moments with it to my eye, I just don't notice.
And why the current thread about viewing screens causes me some
puzzlement. I don't remember which screen is in which OM, I just pick
'em up and use 'em. Sure there are differences, but the only one that
has ever made a real difference to me among normal screens is that the
Beatties lose it at wide angle much more than the Oly screens. I do
notice when the image isn't any good.
So for me, live view removes one more barrier between me and the image.
And the E-330 implementation of live view with the step backward to the
one great flaw of the SLR viewfinder makes it unpalatable to me. A
properly implemented histogram on the F30 would be nice, but for me, the
live view actually does the job pretty well.
The silly thing is that it's all just programming in firmware. Oly could
have offered, gasp, BOTH, a choice to make both of us happy. As it is,
they sold one to you and not to me, when they could have sold two. I was
reeallly close to pulling the trigger until I read the fine print.
> We know Live View will develop. So what features would improve it?
>
Serious technical improvements, as opposed to software implementation
choices, higher resolution, better dynamic range. Screen size and anti
reflection were big issues but are being resolved.
Programming features, full screen, thin line histogram which is not an
average of the three colors, but a synthesis in which the ends reflect
the color with the most data there. It's too easy to blow out the red of
a rose, the blue of sky, etc. with current average histogram
implementations and three separate histograms on a live view is to
complex and distracting.
Even simpler, a choice of flashing out of gamut areas, but before taking
the shot, rather than after. Prevention, rather than regret.
> Should Live View reflect all in-camera adjustments? If not, should it
> reflect some of them? If so, which ones?
>
How about user's choice? Put in a menu. Your live view to suit you and
mine to suit me.
> I'm really not looking for much, personally, to make it better than it
> now is on the E-330. Here is my list:
>
> 1) White Balance. I suppose...... This has been more of a
> puzzlement than a disappointment. Some approximation of WB wouldn't
> hurt anything. Top of my wish list.
>
A nice idea for those shooting JPEG. I shoot virtually exclusively RAW,
so I have that choice in the RAW converter.
> 2) Exposure Compensation. Never have missed Live + - compensation.
> No yearning for it.
>
Won't leave home without it.
> 3) Tones. What about filter approximations? Selection of sepia
> toning or monochrome? Not too important to me.
>
Again, doesn't matter to the RAW shooter.
> 4) Saturation, contrast, and sharpening. OK, sure, but is this a big
> deal? Hardly.
>
RAW
> What is the live view for? Is its purpose doggedly to reflect
> in-camera settings?
How not? To me, the ideal viewfinder, no matter what it's called, or how
it's implemented, is one that shows me exactly what the shot will look
like. What else would I want to see?
Separating yourself from what you are used to and what was, and is,
technically possible, why would you waat a view that didn't reflect what
the shot you are going to take is going to look like?
> Is it supposed to supplant playback?
At the level of ideal, yes.
> In other words, do we want Live View or Live Playback?
>
Like I said above, prevention rather than regret. If the preview is good
enough, who needs playback?
> To my thinking, Oly made the right decisions for the E-330. LV's a
> great tool when you need it, but it retains something of the basic
> transparency of the viewfinder. A little previsualization still ought
> to be valid even in digital photography.
>
And for me, it's different.
> A histogram overlay would be very cool though. I would much rather
> have that than Live Playback any day.
So we both would like a live histogram and two different exposure
display implementations. Those aren't hardware things. Oly could have
offered all that. Another obvious question is whether the E-330 is a
successful camera, selling enough units to make profits that can fund
future improvements.
I believe that if they took a wider view of what camera functions are
for and offered them on the basis of what could be usefule to the most
potential buyers, rather than reproducing both the strengths and
limitations of previous technologies, they would be selling more cameras
and lenses.
> It's all very exciting and will develop tremendously over time and we will
> have Live Playback someday.
>
I agree, although what excites me is the idea of live view projected as
heads up display in my glasses, so I am no longer tied to constraints in
holding the camera based on the relationship between one part of it and
my eyes.
The problem is that I wish Oly would be a major player, and I'm afraid
they let their chance slip by. I hope not
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|