All,

It seems to me that if you have a digital camera, (DSLR or otherwise),
that would display on an electronic viewfinder
the scene you are shooting, then you don't need a mirror at all.  The
sensor would be looking at the scene constantly,
and displaying same on the electronic viewfinder.  When the photo is
like you want it, and you press the shutter release,
you would be commanding the camera to "capture" the current scene and
save it to memory.

However, if you are looking at an optical viewfinder, the the mirror
would be necessary.  But in that case, it would 
seem to me that you would want to see the scene as it actually is from
the sensor point of view, so an optical viewfinder
would sort of get in the way.

If I have this all wrong, I'm sure someone (or many) will let me know,
but it just seems to me that using the camera sensor
and an electronic viewfinder would give the benefits of sn SLR without
the mirror, and the corresponding potential shake from 
the mirror moving out of the way. 

Of course I'm not a camera mfg, so I may be full of it, I don't know.  

The main digital camera I have is a Fujifilm S1000FD.  10MP, 12x zoom,
and many other features.  Cost is about $250.00 USD.
I usually operate this camera in full manual mode. The only exception is
that there is no manual focus.  It's always motor
driven.  But it does a very good job, and I am pleased with it's
performance.  Granted, it won't really compete with a good 
DSLR, but then is doesn't cost $1000.00 or more either.  And I'm not a
professional photographer, so this camera does what
I need it to do at a reasonable cost.


	
Regards,

	
Jim


  
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist