Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 217451" data-attributes="member: 16749">I don't see any serious future for any type of camera that doesn't have a viewfinder with an eyepiece, that you hold up to your eye.&nbsp; A plain screen on the back just does not work ergonomically, and it never will.&nbsp; You can't hold a camera steady enough if you have to hold it out far enough in front of you to be able to look at a regular screen.&nbsp; As much as Nikon and others (<a href="http://www.hasselblad-stellar.com/" target="_blank">Even Hasselblad, if you'll believe it.</a>) are trying to push such cameras, I don't believe they will ever sell very well to serious photographers.&nbsp; I don't think they'll ever be anything more than an upscale version of a cheap point-and-shoot camera.&nbsp; There's a type of mirrorless camera where you look into an eyepiece, just as on a DSLR, but what you see is not an SLR-type optical viewfinder, but an electronic screen.&nbsp; Most of these cameras even tend to resemble a DSLR, albeit a bit smaller and lighter.&nbsp; If the DSLR ever becomes obsolete, that, I think, is what will take its place.&nbsp; An SLR is all about the viewfinder; that's what separates an SLR from every other type of camera.&nbsp; I don't see any good reason why an electronic viewfinder can't be as good as an SLR-type optical viewfinder, or why a camera based on this sort of configuration can't be as good in every way as a true DSLR, with the added bonus of being mechanically simpler and therefore less expensive and more reliable.&nbsp; They don't seem to be there quite yet, but I am sure that they will be, at which point, there'll be little continued purpose for the true DSLR.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bob Blaylock, post: 217451, member: 16749"] I don't see any serious future for any type of camera that doesn't have a viewfinder with an eyepiece, that you hold up to your eye. A plain screen on the back just does not work ergonomically, and it never will. You can't hold a camera steady enough if you have to hold it out far enough in front of you to be able to look at a regular screen. As much as Nikon and others ([url=http://www.hasselblad-stellar.com/]Even Hasselblad, if you'll believe it.[/url]) are trying to push such cameras, I don't believe they will ever sell very well to serious photographers. I don't think they'll ever be anything more than an upscale version of a cheap point-and-shoot camera. There's a type of mirrorless camera where you look into an eyepiece, just as on a DSLR, but what you see is not an SLR-type optical viewfinder, but an electronic screen. Most of these cameras even tend to resemble a DSLR, albeit a bit smaller and lighter. If the DSLR ever becomes obsolete, that, I think, is what will take its place. An SLR is all about the viewfinder; that's what separates an SLR from every other type of camera. I don't see any good reason why an electronic viewfinder can't be as good as an SLR-type optical viewfinder, or why a camera based on this sort of configuration can't be as good in every way as a true DSLR, with the added bonus of being mechanically simpler and therefore less expensive and more reliable. They don't seem to be there quite yet, but I am sure that they will be, at which point, there'll be little continued purpose for the true DSLR. [/QUOTE]

Verification