Live Preview on DSLRs

Just want to rant a little here... there seems to be this push for “Live Preview” on the new cameras coming out. Hmmmmm... our eyes are incredible thanks to our Creator, so why wouldn’t we want to use them through the VIEWFINDER, making use of all we can see that an LCD can't display? Plus, LCD = Battery Drain. I imagine it can be turned off, but that feature just adds $$$ to the cost of the camera body.

One exception: low to the ground macro shots would make good use of that.

I know this isn't a super-important topic, just wanted to stir things up and see what other folks thought.

I`ve wondered about this too. I think there`s a target market for this feature where it is somehow very useful. However, i don`t know what the target is.

Scott

Personally, I'd find it kind of useful. I like sticking my camera into places where it's inconvenient to have my face against the viewfinder (in the surf, over the sides of moving vehicles, etc..). Plus I'm short and sometimes have to hold the camera over my head. In those situations a bit of visual feedback would be nice.

Good point, Ana. I guess as long as you can turn it off to save battery life, it can be useful.

I agree with Ana here. I would LOVE to have the choice of having live preview on my DSLR. I really enjoy my little Canon G6 with it's bendy, contortionist preview screen. It frees me up a lot for of creative photography that I just can't do with my 5D.

Hey Scott, I think we stand corrected.

The ladies have a good argument in favor!

Paul; no matter how good your eyes are, they cannot see what the final image will look like when you're viewing through an optical viewfinder. Not having real time, flexible position live view is the only reason that I have not purchased a DSLR for my landscape shooting. I am currently spoiled with my Sony R1. I recently responded to essentially the same statement in a thread on dpReview's Sony DSLR forum. Rather than retype all that I'll just provide a link to my post. It will explain why live view is important to me.

Scott; I am one of those targets so at least you can now say you found one!

Paul; my R1 has the same size CMOS sensor as most of the 10mp Canon sensors, has real time live view and my battery life is exceptional. When I go hiking for a few hours I just turn the camera on and leave it on until I return. I come back with hundreds of photos and still have battery life left!

BTW, I have probably only shot about 10 landscape photos in my life in any kind of automatic exposure mode. I believe in having complete control of the exposure in order to have predictable results, so you can't call me a "point & shooter" just because my camera doesn't have interchangable lenses or because I use live view. In fact, real time live view makes full manual shooting both easy and extremely predictable.

I have a live view Canon 40D and don't use it. I experimented but do not like the way it handles. The screen does not tilt so shooting over your head for a short person is limited. I really don't like focusing with it and have had varied success with focus. I would take 2 more megapixels trade any day. I do love the LCD view of all my controls such as f stop ISO etc. It is great in low light and any time I want a nice easy view. Olympus had this 2 generations ago at least.
Rick T

The lack of good live preview with a flip and tilt screen is one of the things that has kept me from buying an SLR thus far. For an example of it's use, I posted a shot yesterday that would have been impossible with an SLR. I find I use it a ton when I'm on a tripod, and quite a bit when I'm shooting at odd angles, or don't want to have the camera to my face.

I don't care that it's a P&S feature. In my opinion, it's one of the things that makes point and shoots so great, and I don't understand why features like this shouldn't immediately be migrated to SLRs. Any negatives can be mitigated, and I feel the positives far outweigh them. I understand that live preview is harder to implement on SLRs, but I really like the direction that companies are taking by including it. And Olympus and Panasonic in particular have done well to include flip and twist screens, which really makes live view (and the whole camera) much more flexible.

Folks, I started this topic with a pretty closed mind, but that's changed. I also didn't realize that flip & twist was available on some models... that'd be a huge help (See David Bostedo's alligator shot in the previous post, and how he got it). In fact, that makes a huge difference. Another thing that popped into my head was being at a museum opening and seeing EVERY news photographer holding their rig above their head while "guess shooting". With a flip LCD, there'd be a lot less guessing.

Well, given all that, my long-awaited 5D actually arrived TODAY, so I'll not be partaking in any live preview any time in the near future... maybe I'll end up next to a photographer getting a shot like David Bostedo with the preview, and when I miss it... lesson learned.

Ok, here's my view/experience. I started with a prosumer-camera - the Olympus C-7070. It had the live-preview since it was not a DSLR to beginn with.
I was composing every single shot I did with that cam via the LCD, first of all I could twist and turn it to view from all directions, and also because the optical viewfinder was an insult.
Composing by LCD helped a lot to visualize how a final image would look like once it went through what the focal lenght makes to a scene as well as how the coulour-temperature might effect the feeling/composition of scene. I "found" a lot of shots that I would not have noticed otherwise because of that help in pre-visualizing.
Once I got my 5D I had a hard time composing because the technique I was used to and that was my way of getting good shots did not work anymore. I sometimes still miss the way of composing, but I do favour the 5D over the C-7070 for obvious reasons.

So, what this live-preview is for - for me it simply helped composing and previsualizing.

Actually, I'm not sure there are very many, if any, point and shoots that have the flip out, twisty LCD screen anymore. I had a discussion with a guy at a camera shop a while back and he said these screens were too prone to malfunction and breakage and people generally didn't like them. I had to wholeheartedly disagree with him because I have loved my G6 and have never had a problem with it. It's really essential to the way I like to make pictures sometimes. I wonder if I would utilize a live preview on a DSLR the same way. Probably not but it might be useful for other types of shots.

I tried the new Nikons a while ago, and from what I saw, I'd say that live view could be very useful for macro work with longish lenses (Ronnie Gaubert & Co.). You can zoom in to full size (of the image) on any point of the image and then MF the lens until you have perfect focus, or even use contrast based AF on any point in the image. I think it'll be great.

BG

I primarily shoot 4x5. I also have a 5D and a G9. If I am shooting small format, I love the G9 live view for composing. On the small screen, I get a nice look at the graphical elements of the composition. It works for me. I don't use my 5D all that much, but I will be considering the 5DII or whatever Canon releases next, just to get the live view. Otherwise, I am quite happy with the files my current camera provides.

I have a Canon S2 IS like Dave and do enjoy the flexibility of the screen. When I was using the S2 a lot I never used the screen flat against the back of the camera. That's the only arrangement available on a DSLR so I'll have little or no use for it. I'm a Sony shooter so I was actually pleased that the A700 came out without Live View, a feature that would escalate the cost and be of little or no value to me. As for not being able to get a shot like Dave's' with a DSLR, that's not true either. I have a right angle finder that attaches to my eyepiece and not only gives me a bright clear view through the viewfinder but also allows me to magnify the image 2X if I really need to refine focus. Live View is obviously more than just a gimmick but I just cannot ever picture myself using it. >=))>

I too just don't see what live view would do for me, especially if the screen won't angle around. To me it just seems like a gimmick to raise the price.


Kent in SD

I think having a live-view screen is a nice feature. It can use used to see things that one normally cannot by simply peering through the viewfinder. For example, with some support from the in-camera software/electronics, it should be possible to display 1) a b&w version of the composed scene or 2) an infra-red version of the composed scene. Going further, one might even get to see what is the effect of say a yellow or red filter in the b&w version, or how a b&w photo will look with some toning applied. Agreed, that these sorts of features may not be available in the early live-view versions, but going in this general direction is a good thing overall in my opinion.

A couple of additional comments :

Bill - Don't you still have to get your eye on the right-angle finder? I was looking down at my screen stretched at arms length.

Anil - That's exactly what I get with my camera, and I'd like to see it on an SLR. I see any effect of any of the settings on the camera, including the DOF from the aperture, the color mode selection, etc. It also compensates for very low light by brightening the image on the screen. Granted, this gives a false sense of what exposure you'll get, but can be useful.

Overall, I'd say maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of my shots are taken without my eye on the viewfinder. At times, it's just simpler to look at the screen, even when not strictly necessary (particularly on a tripod).

I have no problem having the option available, as long as I don't have to use it. I have the canon 40D and have yet to even learn how to use it and probably never will. But the fact that it is available doesn't bother me.

The live view on my 40D is great for macro work, very easy to manual focus using 5x and 10x zoom boxes. You see exactly what you are going to get. It's a great feature. The LCD can be set bright enough to use this way even in the bright Florida sun. I also use my G3 this way and I wish the 40D had an articulated screen like the G3.

Target Market:
Low end, upgraders from P&S who are used to composing with LCD screens.
High end, Press togs in crowds etc as highlighted above. Same with Macro, low level work!


Ian

I love the live view on my 1DmIII, i use it quite a bit for my macro work, and landscape work. So i think its a nice addition to the world of SLR's. The only thing that i would like to see added next is that the auto focus would work while being in live view mode.

Wim

The EOS 1D Mark III has Live View. I've had my Mark III for about six weeks and I haven't even tried the live view yet. I also just bought an ultra-compact point-n-shooter. One of my requirements was that it had an optical viewfinder. That eliminated the majority of new ultra-compact cameras from consideration.

The reason that DSLRs don't have live preview is because the mirror deflects the light into the viewfinder. The see the image on the LCD screen, the light must reach the image sensor and the camera has to be in the up position for this to happen. Then the camera is no longer functioning as an SLR. The autofocus mechanism also relies on the light being deflected up towards the viewfinder. That's why the new DSLRs that have Live View can't use autofocus when Live View is activated. Focus in Live View mode is manual only, but one can attach a computer and use the keyboard to focus the lens, in effect controlling the manual focus electronically. I believe that one can also use a computer monitor to view the image. Not as convenient as David's air boat gator picture, but it does allow the camera to be put in a place one can't put one's eye, and view the image remotely.

The Live View feature on DSLRs is for special uses, such as product shots in a studio or macro. Maybe one of these days DSLRs will gain the live preview features of their non-SLR cousins, but for me, there are other features I'd rather see.

I've heard of the idea that electronic viewfinders are the future of SLRs. Geez, I hope not. The viewfinder is the principal interface between photographer and camera. A good optical viewfinder is a wonderful thing. Most cameras today, especially at the entry level end of the line, don't have as good a viewfinder as most old mechanical 35mm film cameras. I got a super-zoom digicam that on paper seemed to be the perfect camera. Oh. how I hate that electronic viewfinder. The camera now captures a lot more dust than images.

Buck, you're not really correct. The D3 and D300 can use AF in live view. They do it like a P&S - contrast based using the image sensor (instead of phase detection using the AF sensors). It's not lightning fast, but IMO about as fast as the "real" AF on my D100 (I used the D3 - purely subjective impression). And (I realize this is a detail) the AF, at least on my camera, doesn't depend on the light deflected up into the viewfinder, but in fact on the light passing through the primary mirror and being deflected down into the AF sensor assembly by a secondary mirror.

There's no doubt that you buy a DSLR to have a decent optical viewfinder available, and it is probably what's used most. But having life view doesn't hurt anybody and can be useful in certain situations (if you look at the D300's price, you can't say the price looks like it's inflated by useless features or anything like that).

Basil

Buck and Basil - I find it pretty interesting that we're coming from somewhat opposite view points - Basil mentioned that "there's no doubt that you but a DSLR to have a decent optical viewfinder available". I would say that the lack of a good electronic viewfinder (or screen) is what's keeping me from buying a DSLR.

I do understand what you mean, and the actual view through a good viewfinder is many times better than the view through my EVF. However, the ability of the EVF to compensate for low light, display information right on the screen, and have all the live view features, are worth losing the nice view to me.

I don't know how old any of you are, but I wonder if this might partly be a generational thing. There are soon going to be an awful lot of people who grew up just expecting cameras to have full time live view screens, and may be put off by SLRs without them. I'm 31, have only ever used digital cameras (other than disposables), and never owned an SLR, so maybe I'm in the transition zone - I understand why optical finders are good, but I'd still rather have a live view EVF.

Haha, me thinks you're trying to tell me I'm getting old. I'm a whopping 24 years old, though.

I'm in the all-digital camp, too, by the way (well, I've used my dad's all manual Canon SLR once or twice when I was younger, but that doesn't count ). Still, looking through an SLR viewfinder is like looking at the real world, while when looking at the D300's life view screen I felt like I was watching TV (and the D300 has an exceptionally nice LCD...). Still, there's use for it, so I'm glad they included it.

I personally am wondering how long it takes until Nikon or Canon offers a camera that works like an SLR but without the viewfinder, only with life view. I don't think it's imminent, but that's the logical succession when you look at what they did with the D40/400D (Rebel XTi).

Basil

I wasn't trying to call anyone old Basil - maybe just imply it. Anyway, I was also thinking of people younger or older than me, who have never looked through a good viewfinder. Heck, the only reason I've looked is because I was thinking about getting a non-Live view SLR, so I picked a few up at a camera store. While the current EVFs are poor in comparison, I've gotta think some of the small, higher definition LCDs coming out could improve that.

I carry a pocketable point-n-shooter with me all the time. I wear them out - average life about two years. I just got a new one. I wanted an ultra-compact with a wide angle lens, image stabilization, and an optical viewfinder. I had no choice - there is only one available. I will admit that its 2.5" LCD with face recognition is a marvel, but I still mostly use the viewfinder.

To me, the electronic viewfinder is the most awful thing to happen to cameras. The super-zoom digicams need them because the diameters of their apertures are so tiny, you wouldn't be able to see much through a TTL optical viewfinder, and I'm guessing that making a non-TTL optical viewfinder with a 12x or 18x zoom is impractical. The electronic viewfinders that I've used range from not very good to horrible. Sure it's nice to have the shooting information superimposed on the view, but I'd much rather be able to see what I'm shooting. There are just too many things that you can't see well enough in an electronic viewfinder - a catchlight in the eye of a bird that isn't filling the frame, for example.

Many modern SLRs don't have very good viewfinders. I'm guessing that the less-than-full-frame sensor allows a smaller mirror, which in turn, requires a smaller viewfinder. If you ever have an opportunity to look through a professional 35mm camera (I'm thinking of a Nikon F3), you will see what a good viewfinder should look like.

I'm not arguing that a live view LCD, especially one that tilts and swivels, isn't a very useful tool. I just don't want one at the expense of a good optical viewfinder.

By the way, I'm old.

Another angle on this. I've been photographing for close to 40 years. My eyes aren't as got as they used to be. My OM4Ti had diopta adjustment, as does my current D70. I have no problem focusing these. The idea of having to put close-focus glasses on to be able to focus of a distane subject because the camera no longer has a quality optical viewfinder would probably take me out of photography.
Live view sound usefull in special cases (as above), lets hope in never replaces the viewfilder.