Liveview on DSLRs : Would you use it over the traditional VF?

Just wanted to see how many people have started to use Live View with their DSLR settings vs the big viewfinders. This helps manufacturers know how to design future housings with LCD monitors in mind.

For example, the LCD windows right now are not shaded and have no non-reflection material to help with viewing from the LCD. This limits the usage in shallow bright conditions.

So please let the manufacturers know what you, the customers, want.

So far, the only dslr camera with a "useable" live-view is the Olympus E-330.

Well I hear that the 620 has improved the AF speed considerably and I thought had a way to reduce the mirror movement again, although it doesn't have the 2nd sensor like the still-unique E-330 (to Olympus' line).

But don't forget that Sony came out with their own "LVA" equivalent - instead of the half-silvered mirror to the 2nd sensor, they slightly adjust the main mirror angle to hit a 2nd sensor vs. the OVF. So I imagine it's as fast as the E330. And for 'macro' liveview, I'd assume other implementations may be acceptable (nearly static, up-close subjects).

I have noticed, the more I've been shooting in general, that we are suffering a bit of 'digital lag' in our LV monitor, which may cause us some delay beyond just the LVA not having the extra mirror movement. Then again, using the 'main' sensor for live view will have that as well as potential heat issues on the main sensor.

Very curious to see how "micro 4/3rds" pans out for digital viewfinder enhancements. But I'm with you overall jlyle - haven't been tempted to upgrade from the E330 yet. I have however begun to notice a bit of age-related farsightedness, which means I might need to change my current mask choice (Hydro-optix) to be able to focus close on guages and my camera LCD screen. (sigh) It'll be hard to give up the field of view it offers though....

Battery life really isn't an issue. The camera battery in full LV all the time still lasts longer than my strobe batteries, so I swap them all out at the same interval.

If Live View was more developed (shutter lag/less button pressing), I would use it more. Trying to use it more on land, but not yet overwhelmed....

I will admit the E-330 was the first "real" liveview - but I have to disagree with jlyle that it's still the only one. I've recently moved up to a Sony A-350, and that has a very nice solution for the liveview.

You can switch between the LCD and viewfinder, and the camera still uses both phase and contrast for focus while the liveview is on.

I've already voted, but as a long time user of an Oly-8080 I don't ever intend to use the viewfinder unless the LCD breaks.

And as I can't help but stir things up a bit I'll compare people who prefer to push their mask up against the viewfinder with those who still swear Vinyl records, Betamax tapes and HD-DVD's are the best (and always will be)

The lack of autofocus w/ my 5DmkII makes liveview not much use. I guess it would work if I was using an ultrawideangle lens or a fisheye where I could just set it at one focal length.

Cheers

James

I use it on the D700 all the time - but only on when on the tripod; I compose and focus in LiveView and often switch over to Mirror Up for the shot. Sometimes, particularly if I want to shoot in continuous mode, I shoot straight form LiveView. It is convenient, gives 100% coverage (which the viewfinder does not) and allows you to move the focus point anywhere in the frame.

I find the "handheld mode" useless and as currently offered will only use LiveView on a tripod.

I would like to see an external feed from the live view that makes pole camming and other remote controlling options a practicality.

So far, the only dslr camera with a "useable" live-view is the Olympus E-330.

No, it's sony a300/350. Oly e330 is discontinued.

Anyone seen the live view on the D90?

Wondering if its useful for diving.

So far, the only dslr camera with a "useable" live-view is the Olympus E-330.

This is the key point here. I think that their should be a separate poll for Olympus users versus everyone else.

Also is this an UW question - or for land too? I presume Jeremy's tripod and mirror up images with Live-View aren't underwater.

Alex

Alex,

as mentioned in the first post, this is sort of feedback for 'housing manufacturers.'

I find using the LCD to frame and also focus is going to be the way of the future. For WA, unless you need AF tracking, you'd have DOF to keep the subject in focus, so framing is probably more important and this is where the LCD shines. As you can see where the subject is coming etc.

For macro, it's easier to find really small subjects with the monitor as you won't have your face mashed against the VF. AF (as I tested on a 5D2 in Live Mode contrast AF) is manageable for still or slow moving subjects and you can still select AF points. There's always manual focus for best control. The Olympus E330's advantage is the live view 2nd CCD which allows the use of the VF. I think 2+ years on, other manufacturers have caught up in some respect, especially with bigger LCDs and faster processors.

Then you have 3 cameras now doing HD video, so the ViDSLR cameras are coming into their own, and as such their unique features have to be utilized properly instead of sticking to the tradition SLR and video separation. It's a new age for image makers and manufacturers have to keep up.

having come from 2 point and shoots then to a DSLR i thought i would have a hard time with the viewfinder but i actually prefer the viewfinder as what you see is the actual image of what you are taking which has to be better for macro focus wise

Steve:-)

I'm sure it depends on what you are used to, but I find it hard to imagine that I will ever use LiveView for still photography. Using the viewfinder always fills a much larger and clearer field of view for me unless my face is jammed up close to the LCD in which case my eyes would not be able to focus on the screen anyway. To me LCD's may be adequate, but never better than a large bright viewfinder.

Jeff, that's surprising since most of the SLRs save the Pro bodies have less than 98% coverage in the VF. With a D700, it's 95%. Not a lot but for framing (especially for those entering the "traditional" categories of competitions where "NO CROPPING" is allowed) the little difference can be big.

The VF is definitely higher resolution but larger? 3" of LCD vs 1:1 (assuming you have one of those big VFs) of a 0.7xx view? Maybe it's because your big VF is in the way of the LCD screen LOL.

For greater than 1:1 macro, tracking the subject is easier with your eyes looking at the subject and aiming the lens at it vs searching in the VF. Now with liveview simulating exposure (well for the housings with that feature), the only major gripes are AF and focus confirmation. The Live View AF contrast focusing is slow and messy (forget about tracking subjects) but it works pretty accurately.

It's not about better or worse, it's about broadening the way a person shoots and utilizing all the tools available to best serve a purpose. Both have flaws but executed properly on a housng, they complement each other very well.

Also is this an UW question - or for land too? I presume Jeremy's tripod and mirror up images with Live-View aren't underwater.

It has been exclusively topside, but I plan on doing some stuff with a tripod in June underwater with the D700 and I expect I will use LiveView then.

Jeff, that's surprising since most of the SLRs save the Pro bodies have less than 98% coverage in the VF. With a D700, it's 95%. Not a lot but for framing (especially for those entering the "traditional" categories of competitions where "NO CROPPING" is allowed) the little difference can be big.

The VF is definitely higher resolution but larger? 3" of LCD vs 1:1 (assuming you have one of those big VFs) of a 0.7xx view? Maybe it's because your big VF is in the way of the LCD screen LOL.

For greater than 1:1 macro, tracking the subject is easier with your eyes looking at the subject and aiming the lens at it vs searching in the VF. Now with liveview simulating exposure (well for the housings with that feature), the only major gripes are AF and focus confirmation. The Live View AF contrast focusing is slow and messy (forget about tracking subjects) but it works pretty accurately.

It's not about better or worse, it's about broadening the way a person shoots and utilizing all the tools available to best serve a purpose. Both have flaws but executed properly on a housng, they complement each other very well.

No matter what the magnification compared to life size is or the percentage loss of the frame, when I jam my eye up against a viewfinder, the image fills a significantly larger part of my monocular visual field of view, than when I am focusing on my LCD from say 8-10 inches away, particularly as it relates to what is actually going to be in my photographs. Simple test, look through your viewfinder at this screen, you can easily make out the text and graphics in the frame, looking at my LCD, text particularly does not even come close unless of course I zoom in. I estimate, looking at my 3" LCD that it is maybe 30% at most of life size.

And that's without my magnifying viewfinder. I can't comment on the macro thing, never having done greater than 1:1 and by no means a macro expert.

Again I'm sure it's what one is used to as well, but I'm sure more comfortable tracking something through my viewfinder. My first underwater setup was a P&S and I hated the LCD compared to a viewfinder.

I did not vote because I am not currently using a live view rig. My first u/w digital system used a CP 550 or something like that. I used a black cylinder and a Nexus wet diopter to view the LCD. No problem viewing the LCD in bright light. I had Nexus for the Nikon F4. With the action viewfinder, I had a nice large 100% view. I often used the housing at arms length on skiddish critters. Sadly, no cameras are being made with these types of finders.

I think the latest Nikon LCDs have about 4X the resolution of the Olys. If Olympus upgrades their sensor, greatly ups the res. of the LCD, and ever releases a Micro 4/3 (MFT) camrea, they could have a real winner for u/w. Unfortunately, the u/w SLR market is not where the money is.

Bob

I do not have a live view camera, but if I did, and could tell if I had the focus nailed, I can see it's advantage wrt underwater macro. I do not see alot of other advantages, except maybe topside on a tripod.

Hand held live view with a relatively heavy camera like a D700 and a heavy lens would be difficult to steady while shooting and holding it away from your face. Good shooting discipline becomes more important, especially with the higher resolution sensors becoming available. live view LCDs discourage good technique I think.

That being said, I prefer to have more options available, so would welcome live view in addition to a large, bright, 100% viewfinder.

john

The main thing Ive noticed with liveview is it can be much more fatiguing because Im holding the camera and strobes out in front of me. With a compact it wasnt a problem, but the DSLR added enough on its noticeable. I also find it tends to be less stable as a result, and balancing the camera setup becomes more important, both in buoyancy and front/back balance and the like.

I think it can be great for some subjects, but really the only beef I have with a VF is having to jam the mask up, which could be mitigated with an Inon 45 viewfinder. More expensive, but my preferred solution for now.

With the 50D, the liveview focus point cant be moved around on the Ikelite. So even for macro I find it less useful than it could be, unless Im focussing in the centre, which makes the magnifier option usable.

Otara