> 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. Religious debates are not allowed on PICList :-) ie this is a very very time honoured and debated subject liable to lead to violence, bloodshed, death and war :-). For most of the life of digital cameras the optical path as superior to the electronic one for various reasons. It is now *PERHAPS* arguable that this is the case in the top line cameras. I have 2 x what are now trailing edge Minolta DSLR's. I have 2 x excellent prosumer fixed lens cameras (Minolta 7Hi, A2) The A2 has a VGA display viewed through an eye level infinity effective focus viewer. ie works like a DSLR but you view a tiny screen. The 7Hi has the same arrangement but less resolution. Both have electronic magnification allowing you to blow up part of the scene for focusing. I think the A2 is solely 2X ma - but that's the equivalent of 1.3 MP at eye level. The electronic system has vast advantages. BUT the optical DSLR system has too. I longingly wait the day when the camera makers finally get their act together and roll both together properly. It is hard to beat the optical path system. Part of this is due to mother hen syndrome and decades of herd experience. But my A2 is about as good as most electronic systems (even much newer ones) and while better in many ways than anoptical system, it does not replace it. Re some comment on refresh rates and action shots - My 7Hi has an almost negative shutter lag - you have to try it to believe it. Viewfinder refresh speed is never an issue. > 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. My 7Hi (arguably the best prosumer camera ever made all things considered )(now ther's a religious statement)(eg as one example - having almost 100 MB of RAM buffer internally makes a vast difference to some sorts of shooting) ALSO has an mechanical shutter to go with the elctronic !!!. In some modes it just does auto capture seamlessly - in most the whisper quiet shutter can be heard at work. You can shoot in a quiet room and the shutter isn't heard. > 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. There are ways that don't need a traditional mirro but they are not rare or not used. eg imagine a rotating half disk at an angle to the light path with a mirrored surface - balancing is a matter of engineering. Spin the disk and shoot through the hole. Viewfinder gets to see half the light. Optical challenges exist - es[pecially for the eye. Disk could be sped up and down or stopped. Or spun up from rest to take a photo -still more gently than a mirror. (Eye view via mirror - action - disc spins up from rest until sensor fully open - shoot - disk is already spinning down to rest for eye. OR continues to spin with eye seing flickering half level scene allowing tracking of the yumping rallky car etc. Shots per second are solely sensor and processing limited. Size is an issue - but few care too too much at top level. As long as it hasn't got an integral vertical grip :-). Russell. > > 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 -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist