SLR's v Bikers

[tigersaw]

Originally Posted by WRCSixtyThree

Right... I see. Having read the specs and details it seems that although they call it 'live' it is simply a momentary mirror-flap which allows the image to be displayed before capture... Not really much better than simply taking a shot and then taking it again, as far as I can tell, but I guess it's a feature of sorts.

Doesnt have to be momentary - you can make it perminant. It adds shutter lag though as it has to come out of the mode to take the picture

Used to use a Nikon 35mm SLR until I went over to the dark side a few years ago and got myself an Olympus MJU digital compact but soon found it wasn't versatile enough (no manual options). Treated myself to an Olympus E510 last summer, love it although I'm still getting to grips with its finer points.

Originally Posted by tigersaw

Doesnt have to be momentary - you can make it perminant. It adds shutter lag though as it has to come out of the mode to take the picture

If the mirror flaps permanently how does the viewfinder remain active? Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?

Originally Posted by WRCSixtyThree

If the mirror flaps permanently how does the viewfinder remain active? Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?

On my D300 the veiwfinder does not remain active whilst in Live View, you can either use one or the other.

I have only used it whilst playing to be honest, but then I have only had the new camera for a month.

Also love using B&W film, self developed and pictures printed in the darkroom, cannot beat it in my opinion!!

I am in the process of having a new garden shed built, half of which is to become a darkroom.

Yep. Got a Nikon D40.

Fuji S2 and a few lenses.

[tigersaw]

Originally Posted by WRCSixtyThree

Or does it smiply at that point display the image on the LCD?

Yup

Originally Posted by laMon

I still believe your eye shoots the shot, the post opp should not interfere too much.

I agree, but sometimes digital cameras don't acurately render images, especially with things like white balance or in low light.

For example, I took a series of images recently at night of a floodlit structure. The white balance and colour cast on the images was wrong due to the way the camera interpretted the light, but I was able to choose a different white balance as I shot in RAW (without changing any data the camera had captured), and correct the tone of the image to relflect what was actually there. I use post-processing for that sort of thing, but definately not changing images so they are different to what that scene actually was.

I've noticed that in recent months some photography magazines have dedicated significant portions of the magazine to editing images to add a different sky, move or remove objects or in some even add in things that were never there to start with! To my mind, that's not photography.

Originally Posted by Nutter

I agree, but sometimes digital cameras don't acurately render images, especially with things like white balance or in low light.

For example, I took a series of images recently at night of a floodlit structure. The white balance and colour cast on the images was wrong due to the way the camera interpretted the light, but I was able to choose a different white balance as I shot in RAW (without changing any data the camera had captured), and correct the tone of the image to relflect what was actually there. I use post-processing for that sort of thing, but definately not changing images so they are different to what that scene actually was.

I've noticed that in recent months some photography magazines have dedicated significant portions of the magazine to editing images to add a different sky, move or remove objects or in some even add in things that were never there to start with! To my mind, that's not photography.

how different is the image shot in raw to the other ones?

The initial appearance of the image itself has little difference to those shot in jpeg, apart from the jpeg compression being visible if you zoom in a long way. However, because the RAW image has all the data the camera captured from the CCD, rather than being an interpretted file saved purley as an image without that original data, you can change how that raw data is interpretted to produce the final result. After processing I always save as jpeg, because RAW is only any use in either the camera manufacturer's software or by using a plugin compatible with that manufacturer's format of file.