bmattock
Veteran
I found this article interesting. Most of us have noticed that those who use digicams seem to prefer framing using the LCD over using a traditional viewfinder, and then chimping over the results immediately following the shot. I find this interesting, not because of the ever-present film-vs-digital wars, but rather because this perhaps represents a sea-change in the way we look at technology.
At one time, auto-exposure was not to be completely trusted. Sure, you could use it - but you always did a 'sanity check' to make sure the settings seemed appropriate before pressing the shutter. The same could be said for auto-focus. Use it, but don't just blindly trust it to always be right.
However, when you're using a digicam for photography, you generally don't have access to manual settings - or they are buried deep in menus and require much button-pushing to get to. The same for manual focus - perhaps it can be done, after a fashion, but it is really hard to force the typical digicam from doing auto-focus all the time. Not a lot different from a traditional PnS in that sense.
However, if you're holding an LCD at arm's length, you have no choice but to depend on extreme DOF and auto-focus to do the job for you; same thing for auto-exposure.
I was taking photos at a public event recently, and I wondered where the press photographer was. This was an event that was usually covered. There was only me and some young guy with what appeared to be a cheap 'bridge style' digicam of the Kodak or HP sort - you know the kind. Looks vaguely like an SLR, but shrunk down - they usually have an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder, and of course the lens cannot be removed. I took him to be an enthusiast like myself.
I found out later that he's with the newspaper. The paper (admittedly a small-town independent) is no longer buying expensive SLR or digital SLR cameras for its reporters and photographers - it is buying cheap 6-8mp digicams. This allows them to stay up with technology without spending a lot on rapidly-depreciating equipment that is easily lost, stolen, or broken anyway. Since the photo quality is probably quite enough for a newspaper's needs, I guess it makes sense. I recall reading a thread here recently about a journalist in Iraq who is using Olympus C8080's instead of dSLR's, so I guess it is catching on.
Anyway, I find it interesting that a shift has taken place. Those using the LCD for their photos are clearly depending on AE and AF working properly, and they're somewhat mystified (according to the article) about what a viewfinder would be used for anyway. This seems to me to indicate that the younger generation considers propery exposure and focus to be the domain of the camera's electronics, while they simply concentrate on framing and composition (one hopes).
However, on the down side, I note that another story in the news today involves a criminal case against an accused illicit-drug maker who was found 'not guilty' because the police's digital camera malfunctioned when used to photograph the evidence before it was destroyed by the police for safety reasons. I present both links here. The NY Times story requires registration, I believe, which if I am not mistaken is free - at least I have it and I've never paid them anything.
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3643095
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/technology/circuits/07viewfinder.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
At one time, auto-exposure was not to be completely trusted. Sure, you could use it - but you always did a 'sanity check' to make sure the settings seemed appropriate before pressing the shutter. The same could be said for auto-focus. Use it, but don't just blindly trust it to always be right.
However, when you're using a digicam for photography, you generally don't have access to manual settings - or they are buried deep in menus and require much button-pushing to get to. The same for manual focus - perhaps it can be done, after a fashion, but it is really hard to force the typical digicam from doing auto-focus all the time. Not a lot different from a traditional PnS in that sense.
However, if you're holding an LCD at arm's length, you have no choice but to depend on extreme DOF and auto-focus to do the job for you; same thing for auto-exposure.
I was taking photos at a public event recently, and I wondered where the press photographer was. This was an event that was usually covered. There was only me and some young guy with what appeared to be a cheap 'bridge style' digicam of the Kodak or HP sort - you know the kind. Looks vaguely like an SLR, but shrunk down - they usually have an EVF instead of an optical viewfinder, and of course the lens cannot be removed. I took him to be an enthusiast like myself.
I found out later that he's with the newspaper. The paper (admittedly a small-town independent) is no longer buying expensive SLR or digital SLR cameras for its reporters and photographers - it is buying cheap 6-8mp digicams. This allows them to stay up with technology without spending a lot on rapidly-depreciating equipment that is easily lost, stolen, or broken anyway. Since the photo quality is probably quite enough for a newspaper's needs, I guess it makes sense. I recall reading a thread here recently about a journalist in Iraq who is using Olympus C8080's instead of dSLR's, so I guess it is catching on.
Anyway, I find it interesting that a shift has taken place. Those using the LCD for their photos are clearly depending on AE and AF working properly, and they're somewhat mystified (according to the article) about what a viewfinder would be used for anyway. This seems to me to indicate that the younger generation considers propery exposure and focus to be the domain of the camera's electronics, while they simply concentrate on framing and composition (one hopes).
However, on the down side, I note that another story in the news today involves a criminal case against an accused illicit-drug maker who was found 'not guilty' because the police's digital camera malfunctioned when used to photograph the evidence before it was destroyed by the police for safety reasons. I present both links here. The NY Times story requires registration, I believe, which if I am not mistaken is free - at least I have it and I've never paid them anything.
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3643095
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/technology/circuits/07viewfinder.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
