Thread: Vintage DSL/EVF models, anyone?

Incredible "niche cameras", or, how to avoid the "I gotta get a DSLR" trap ...

Wow, there are so many kinds of cameras out there, new and old, that it's hard to remember to differentiate their offerings and our preferences before taking one home and wondering why they're so frustrating to our expectations!

In the beginning of the modern digital camera revolution, there were great "bridge" cameras from Minolta (their DiMage 5/7/A-series and even their JPG-only Z-series), from Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Casio, Fujifilm (sic, it's DIGITAL, not film!), and many prior "bridge" cameras from Nikon, Canon, Kodak, and others.

"Bridge" cameras were an attempt to get digital capabilities into a less expensive camera than would be required if they tried to make 35mm SLR Single Lens Reflex compatible digital design at the time. So, they used smaller, less expensive non-interchangeable lenses with no removable lens mounting interface, no expensive precision pentaprism or moving mirror, and smaller, affordable digital sensors, way smaller than the industry standard 35mm or APS film frame, which all larger SLR gear was designed around at the time. The resulting smaller "bridge" cameras have retained a niche of popularity ever since. Casio offers a model with thousands of frames-per-second capture (think: slow motion analysis of your golf swing, or study the wing motion of a bird, or just fire away and hope you get one perfect capture from a fast moving dynamic scene in process). Fujifilm offers a stunning 30x manual zoom lens model -- from 24mm wide angle to 720mm super telephoto. Sony offered the first with a larger sensor format with a Zeiss modest-zoom lens. The evolution goes on, though still in a niche.

Many of these prior "bridge" cameras introduced the technology of the modern ILC Interchangeable Lens Cameras, or MILC Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras ... except, of course, the interchangeable lens part. Modern cameras from Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung, Sony, and soon from Nikon and Canon, offer the advantages and challenges of interchangeable lenses, only adding back in the larger sensors, as Sony had explored first. By accepting being mirrorless and pentaprismless, their new offering is smaller and or less expensive than some DSLR Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras. I note that if Sony had made their earlier model with an interchangeable lens, all the others now would be "me too" follow ons. Sony missed that, but is catching up quickly and catapulting past the competition with an HD video line that uses the same lenses as Sony's new interchangeable lens still cameras. Panasonic is headed that way, too with a 4/3rds HD movie camera model line. Remember, Sony and Panasonic want to sell CHIPS!

But, nomenclature wise, I decline to call them EVIL Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens cameras, though all nomenclature and abbreviations are somewhat accurate, and yet, at the same time, inadequate.

Design wise, features and benefits wise, I especially notice how the Panasonic 4/3rds "MILC" (have you forgotten already what that might mean? Me too: Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera) is almost control-for-control a linear descendant of the entire Minolta line from the 1995 Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 600si(507si/650si), the later model 9 and 7 film cameras, as well as the Minolta DiMage 5/7/A-series of DSL/EVF cameras. Specifically, Panasonic incorporates the top-plate direct-input / direct-readout controls (knobs, levers, and switches), the electronic viewfinder relationship (viewfinder refresh and pixel count relative to sensor pixel count), and the litany of "intelligent automation" features as if from the prior Minolta "si sophisticated intelligence" models. Did Panasonic inherit Minolta photographic engineers, or did they act as a "your name here" factory for Minolta, or did they just buy some Minoltas and fall in love? Who knows? After a fashion, who cares anymore? The Panasonics are some GREAT cameras. Minolta sold out to Sony and left the retail market.

So, I send out a call for us all to respect the history of the "mirrorless" cameras that we all probably have in our past somewhere, some of us using them daily with no plan to "upgrade" since they still do exactly what we need.

But, how do we describe our cameras, as if that matters? I'll continue to whack away at this challenge ...

For instance, some of us call the back LCD to be not a "viewfinder", even if these LCD-only cameras do behave like medium format / large format film cameras in that we look at the image of our subject scene on the back "ground glass" of the medium format / large format film camera, or now, on the back LCD of our hand-held cameras. I see these as:

• LCD Liquid Crystal Displays where we "look at an image of our subject ON the camera" -- we are looking at the camera,

versus

• EVFs Electronic View Finders where we "look at an image of our subject THROUGH the camera" -- we are looking at our subject.

EVF cameras are like SLR cameras in this way -- we are looking at our subject.

LCD cameras are like medium format / large format film cameras -- we are looking at the camera.

Before, with SLR cameras, we looked (in)directly (through a mirror and pentaprism) at our subject through the camera. Now, with EVF cameras and LCD cameras, we look at an image of our subject in or on the camera. This is one of the most important things about these cameras to me, and one of the most frustrating things to SLR enthusiasts.

• SLR: SLR enthusiasts like seeing their subject (in)directly (through a mirror and pentaprism) through the taking lens.
• EVF: EVF and LCD enthusiasts like seeing an image of the subject indirectly through the taking lens.

Advantages? An electronic image in an EVF or LCD can be enhanced and magnified (and made remote), offering greater direct view display of overlaid information about my camera settings, and greater subject detail, enhanced contrast, magnification, and dim-lighting amplification to help me compose my "shot" than the old-fashioned (in)direct view SLR system (which, remember, using a mirror, and pentaprism, was never very direct to begin with anyway, was it?).

The real complaints of SLR camera users against DSL/EVF cameras are that they use small, comparatively noisy digital sensors that are not up to professional photo finishing standards (they think -- but not true), they are not fast or responsive to focus, they do not have high-speed sequential capture, and they have relatively long blackout between shots. DSL/EVF cameras are improving and gaining on SLR cameras in all these areas, and beat SLR cameras in movies, including continuous focus during movie capture, low light image composition, and magnified, precision-focus support, as well as tethered and remote capture. Some SLR cameras are stealing these innovative ideas, and are reverting to mirrorless EVF/LCD camera functions to provide these competitive features -- by bypassing their own mirrors and pentaprisms. Some "bridge" cameras, as mentioned earlier, already beat DSLR cameras on some features and benefits.

So, the only common element, so to speak, with these "bridge" cameras and with DSLR cameras is that we are both looking through the taking lens (no rangefinders or uncoupled viewfinders here). The common element (pun!) is THE SINGLE LENS, so the letters "SL" should be in everyone's abbreviation of either camera system ... except for the abbreviations of medium format (MF) and large format (LF). Oh drat! Twin lens (TLR)... argh! =8^o

So, should it be MSL Mirrorless Single Lens, or even MPSL Mirrorless Pentaprismless Single Lens cameras, versus SLR Single Lens Reflex ("reflex" is the "mirror"). No one ever commented on the I Interchangeability of the lenses before when naming camera systems, so the I in ILC Interchangeable Lens Camera as proffered by the likes of Popular Photography and Imaging magazine is just arbitrary and whimsical. For consistency, that would make old-fashioned, familiar SLR cameras into SILR cameras ... if we are to remain consistent.

So, I've been calling them DSL/EVF cameras for Digital Single Lens / Electronic View Finder cameras, others still use the word "bridge" indicating a stopping over place on the way to DSLR cameras. Fine. Enough already! Nobody defines a camera for what's NOT inside. If we're going to have "Mirrorless cameras", then how about

• Filmless cameras?
• Viewfinderless cameras?
• Pentaprismless cameras?
• Automationless cameras (instead of manual cameras)?
• Zoomless lenses (instead of prime lenses)?

Remember the phrase "horseless carriages" instead of the words "automobiles" or just plain "cars"? How long did THAT moniker last? =8^o "Mirrorless" indeed!

While I appreciate the hunt for nomenclature to identify our tools, and ourselves, this is getting pretty inane!

So, how about discussions of the legacy DSL/EVF "bridge" cameras? Share your tales, fellow "bridge" photographers, and photographers using whatever tools you've got, and please, extol the virtues of your tools. ;-)

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
Minolta DiMage (DSL/EVF) Photographer

Along with EVF and LCD I voted for "other" - that's for Red dot sight collimator system which is more then useful for "hip shots" especially for long focus ranges

Thanks Quan,

That's a great tease on high-tech view center finding:

Red dot sight collimator system - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=Red+dot+sight+collimator+system

From Wikipedia: Reflex sight

Reflex sights are optical or computing sights that reflect a reticle image (or images) onto a combining glass for superimposition on the target. Reflex sights are most commonly configured as non-magnifying firearm sights (such as the M68 red dot sight), but they are also used to aid targeting on other devices, such as telescopes and point-and-shoot digital cameras. Reflex sights should not be confused with laser sights, which actually project a point of light directly onto a target.

Thanks for the lead to yet another way of identifying a field of view for capturing images for subsequent study.

I was also thinking of other "minority" image capture decision making processes, such as:

• Zone focusing
• Time lapse
• Infrared beam trip
• Contax's focus bracketing

... the list is as endless as is our creativity.

More, anyone? Other than through the camera, direct and reflex (digital or mechanical) view, how do you know when and where there's a shot to be captured?

Are we using our tools or are our tools using us?

Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
Minolta, Contax, Vivitar, and apparently any other out-of-business camera Photographer :-(

Originally Posted by peterblaise

That's a great tease on high-tech view center finding:

Red dot sight collimator system - Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=Red+dot+sight+collimator+system
From Wikipedia: Reflex sight
...............
..........

Thank you for expanding, the device is really great.
It's familiar for militaries, hunters and shooting sportsmens 'cause it allows extremally fast catching of object into shooting line. But though we often have similar tasks in photography it's still not of wide use by photographers. And we have a kind of vicious circle here: there is no demand - no offers, no offers - no demand, but I do believe the circle must be broken, so maybe I'll try to establish some demand? :-)

First of all, what is this
It's a device that supplies an imagenary image of red dot (or cross or some other mark) so that light beams are the same as from infinitely distant dot of light (f.i. from star on the sky). And when those beams tuned to be parallel to lens optical axis then you may be sure when you put the red dot to some distant object this object appears right in the center of your screen/viewfinder. Pointing become as easy as "puhh" shooting by your pointing finger.

Where is it taken from
Red dot sight may be purchased worldwide as a sport/hunting accessory, just search for "Red dot sight" or "Collimator sight" and you'll find a lot. If you have no experience with this kind of equipment then it would be not a bad idea to buy it in some OFFline shop with a possibility to try a little before buy.

How to make a choice among a huge number of models
First of all you need device with NO any magnification. 1x and only 1x. NO any 2x or even 1.04x
Then you surely need device with automatic brightness adjustment: the dot must be clearly visible against bright sky or sunny beach but it must not blare you when pointing to some dark corner.
Maybe you need an open optical construction but not necessary, for you may also use closed device that looks like a small telescopic sight - in fact being not a telescopic sight, no magnification at all, do you remember?
All other features are mostly optional depending on your taste and demands: the form of marker (sometimes adjustable), size/forms/color of device and so on.
Please avoid $20-30 China counterfeits. Quite suitable device may start some about $100 but it hardly goes above $400-500. Reflector scheme is quite enough for most purposes so I do not think you need a precisious holographic device starting from $1000 with no evident upper $ limit, but if you like it you may use it too.
And if you are fond of photohunting in mud&dust you may prefer some hi protected military models (all of them have closed optical construction), but be ready to start from $1000 or so.
As for me I'm a happy user of HAKKO BED-40 device purchased for some $200 or so

This model was choosen for steady clearly visible autoregulated marker and last but not least for record-low size and weight

How is it mounted on camera
That's a most annoying problem. No demand - no offers.
Most evident and universal mount place is hot shoe, but sights are produced for weapons and obey weaponry standarts - mostly it's Weaver 3/8" or 7/8" mount.
As a result some enthusiasts produce handmade adapters using sheets of plastics, knife, glue and so on. That's not easy to perform and not good for both precision and reliability.
After thorough search I found the only supplier in the world who offers industrially produced Weaver-to-Hotshoe adapters. That's the Xtend-a-Sight™ Red Dot Sight Mounting adapter produced by Photosolve.

I purchased this adapter the same day I found it several years ago, and today it's still there on the same place for the same $24.95
http://www.photosolve.com/shop/shopd...rch=Yes&sppp=5
If you decide to use this adapter please do not rely on its seeming simplicity and applied short manual carefully. Before use you have to tune the special screw for the adapter to sit in the nest without backlash, but not very tightly.
The next step is to place Red dot sight to the adapter. The process may be different for different sights and must be described in sight's manual.
Finally you have to "adjust the gun". The best way is to use the tripod; attach the lens which is most expected to be used with the sight, use maximum zoom (if it's a zoom lens) and place some remote object into the very center of viewfinder/livescreen. Do not use doorhandle as etalon object when indoor! The parallax effect is here the same as for any rangefinder, so it's a good idea to find something really distant behind your open window. The sight is adjusted by a couple of special tuning screw; the sight must have them, do not purchase sight if it haven't. Moving those screws you move the red dot and your aim is to put the dot right into the place that you see in the center of viewfinder/livescreen. Please be aware that your tuning may not exactly fit to other lens but usually the shift isn't really large so you need not adjust sight every time you change the lens, just keep in mind the shift value (if any) for each lens and that must be enough.

How it looks like
Here's my HAKKO BED-40 attached to Panasonic G2


How it works
As easy as you breath. Just keep red dot on the target and press the shutter.
You need not to close one of your eyes. You need not to bring the sight close to your eyes. Just keep your camera with outstretched or half bent arms and soon you'l feel as if your camera emits the narrow red beam which is reflected from the surface of your target; though it's a pure illusion but it feels like that.
While you point by Red dot you may also control the result on the liveview screen.

What's the result
As a result you have less then a single second gap between one and two: (1) camera switched on but hanging on your neck and (2) rare and/or unexpected shot taken.
I've already posted to forum some examples of "hip shot" photos, so you may find it here:
(http://mirrorlessforum.com/welcome-mirrorless-forum/2172-.......)

One mor use of Red dot sight is very precisious panning.
Say you want to follow the car driven or bird flying and take a shot with a shutter speed not so short. As a result you expect to obtain a clear image of the car on motion-blurred background. It's a good way to convey a sense of rapid motion but you need a lot of practice to pane exactly with the speed of car, or else the car itself would be blurred too.
The process is much more easier with Red dot. Just forget everything but a single task: to keep red dot exactly on the handle of the front door of the car (or some other small and vivid detail) - and you'll have excellent result on the first or second try.
One more thing: switch out image stabilisation before panning! In case of Panasonic camera you may also try stabilisation mode "3" that's specially designed for panning, but you have to pan strictly horisontally and in landscape orientation only.

Some example (click for fullsize)