The advantage of an SLR was the ability to frame the photo by looking through the lens, which wasn't possible with folders, TLRs, rangefinders, etc. Light had to be hidden from the film, of course, so you couldn't look straight through, hence the mirrors and prisms. With the switch to digital, there was no film to hide, opening to door to radical re-engineering of cameras. The camera companies, however, didn't take the chance to do that, merely stuck a sensor where the film used to be, and pretty much kept the cameras unchanged otherwise. I'm of the mind that the E-P1, and Micro 4/3rds in general, is a much bigger leap in the evolution of camera engineering than most people realize, because it's the first real decoupling of image quality, camera size, and lens interchangeability.
dickasso: The major major drawback is still that using a screen (or electronic viewfinder) the lag makes it very hard to capture that split-second moment which is crucial in sport and nature photography but also important for taking good portrait shots.
Fucking Wired, did anybody over there hear that it's 2010, and we're two years into a terrible-forever Recession/Depression, and maybe people lucky enough to have a digital SLR camera are going to keep that thing for as long as it shoots, which is probably going to be 10 years unless they drop it?
Leica was/is popular for reasons other than size; it had an allure of 'the best camera money can buy,' and fanatic support of certain famous photographers; it showed a quality in its photos which could not be quantified; it was a luxury camera. No amount of "smallest" or "fastest" or "quietest" will make a camera anything close to a Leica, not in this day and age.
« Older Perceptual Segregation [pdf].... | A giant polar bear is awakened... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt