M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On the other hand, with techniques such as storing the 3 frames before
> and after the shutter release (which cannot currently be done with the
> mirror down in an SLR) and no loss of image when taking a picture
> (mirror up), there are certainly advantages to a digital viewfinder
> SLR which may be worth dealing with latency.

Latency could certainly get annoying if you're taking pictures of fast
moving stuff, like sports.  However, my first impression is that I would
find the low resolution getting in the way.  800 x 600 isn't anywhere near
what the eye can see thru a optical viewfinder.  That's good enough to frame
the picture, but I can't imagine how you can see critical focus details and
get a good feeling for depth of field.

One advantage is that you're seeing exactly what the camera is seeing, not
just optically but all the way to the finished picture (minus the
resolution).  That sounds useful in tricky lighting situations.  For
example, you don't have to guess how much of the foreground will be picked
up when the sunset is exposed for maximum effect.  It could also allow for
in-camera adjustment on the dynamic range and shadow detail.  This is hard
to do after the image has already gotten squased to 8 bits per color per
pixel.

Another advantage is that if done right, you could use the viewfinder with
polarizing sunglasses on and a polarizing filter on the lens (which is
likely if you're in a situation where you want to wear sunglasses).  Try
that with a traditional SLR if you don't know what I'm talking about.
However, LCD display often work on polarizing principles so this would
require special design for this feature.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist