Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Optical Viewfinder Compromises

I wrote the other day about features I'd like in my next camera. Ever think about how much we 'pay' to have an optical viewfinder in our dSLR's and what would happen to camera design if we had a really good electronic viewfinder?

First, you could throw away the mirror - it's only function is to feed the view to the optical view finder - no mirror - no bounce - no noise - no blackout - no mechanical limits on 'motor drive'. Lenses could come closer to the sensor, just as they do in the new Leica M8.

Second, you could remove the shutter - consumer digital cameras don't have a shutter - they simply clear the sensor light wells of electric charge and let it build up for a period of time which is the equivalent of the open shutter time, then download a reading. At this point there are still advantages to having a mechanical shutter, but for how much longer?

An electronic view finder is easy to make tilt - how about a camera with a big sensor but built like the Sony 707, 828 series with the back of the camera tilting relative to the lens and sensor - I sure miss that feature since going to a dSLR.

So how close are we to an electronic view finder good enough for a pro grade camera? I'd have to say it can't be too long - certainly less than 5 years away. I have a Canon S3is for snapshots and family and it's electronic viewfinder is adequate at best. The other day a friend showed me his Panasonic FZ-50 - boy, very nice electronic view finder - almost enough to make me willing to give up the optical view finder.

So if they are that close, why haven't they offered a large sensor camera with interchangeable lenses and electronic viewfinder? Well, a couple of reasons.

First, although they are improving and the Panasonic and the Minolta A2 series viewfinders aren't bad, they aren't exactly great either - odd sparkles and not really fine enough for good focusing manually (except in magnified view). Perhaps more importantly they don't cycle the image fast enough for shooting action, and none so far can handle 'motor drive' mode without blanking out or freezing the image. Forget following your subject at 3 frames a second.

Once those problems are solved, your typical dSLR is sure going to look and work a lot differently and I for one am looking forward to it. That old bouncing mirror puts a lot of constraints on camera design and features and in the future people will shake their heads at the awkward temporary compromise of the flying mirror.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

AFAIK, there's at least one more advantage of the moving mirror - it enables so-called "phase detection" focusing in DSLRs, which is much faster and more reliable compared with digicam "contrast detection" focusing.
Marcin

George Barr said...

Phase detection requires splitting a beam from the lens. This is easy to do with a semi silvered mirror in front which while darkening the viewfinder slightly has no effect on the image. To pull of the same thing with no reflex mirror, a small temporary mirror would be required or possibly focus could be checked by reflection from permanent glass in front of the sensor.

On the other hand it probably makes more sense to take advantage of the sensor having many times as much information as the usual contrast focus circuitry to come up with an entirely new and better way to focus. it ought to be possible to do predictive focusing of moving objects just like in good slr's.