A hypothetical question this.

If your DSLR manufacturer brought out a compact version of your DSLR - same sensor, same autofocus - just no viewfinder - and instead a large LCD on the back, would you be interested?

It would take the same interchangable lenses, but would be smaller and housings more compact. But viewing would only be on the screen on the back - no viewfinder!

With the same lenses and sensor, image quality would be identical, but the camera could be a lot smaller - and housings would be simpler.

Is this an idea that would appeal?

Alex

As I'm just packing far too many bits and pieces for atrip the answer is yes! But spec would have to be very good indeed. Leica intend to release an M series digital next yearish - put a 12mm Voigtlander lens on this behind a reasonable dome or even corrected optic and the result could be something near what you describe for wide-angle work (maybe) but there will have to be shutter adjustments and suchlike for it to work underwater - you never know. At least it will be lighter than a full SLR.

An interesting idea. Smaller, lighter and possibly cheaper would all be good. The main advantages of an SLR are the interchangable lenses and the ability to see exactly what you are shooting. A live LCD should give a 100% view rather than the 95% view you tend to get through an SLR viewfinder.

A plus would be the ability to take shots in awkward positions where I can't get my housing and head in.

The LCD would have to react fast enough for fast moving subjects, a problem with many compacts I believe.

I have a digital compact I use when I don't won't the bulk of my DSLR. I often use the optical viewfinder for 2 reasons. In bright light you can't see the LCD screen clearly. This is less likely to be a problem underwater but could limit top side use. The other problem is that I need glasses to see the LCD but I can see through the compacts optical viewfinder or the DSLR viewfinder without. Again less of a problem underwater as I have a corrected mask.

So if such a camera existed I'd look at it and decide whether I thought I could actually use it the way I want.

I have shot for quite a while with bothe the olympus 4040 and the olympus 8080, there is an advantage to using the lcd,but the diusadvantages of the olys outweight the lcd advantage, poor focus lock and shutter lag. I have just upgraded to a d200 and am looking for a housing system that will not break the bank and be "compact" I am not looking forward to lugging the dslr, lenses, housing, ports, flashes on the planes so they won't go astray. a smaller dslr without shutter lag that funtions as well or better than the d200 would help as the housing would also be smaller, still will have the flash and ports to shlep around

Alex,

I think you know my answer on this one - Yes indeed.

Strip away the pointless viewfinder, get rid of that silly mirror bashing about all the time, and have a nice Live view LCD instead.

A big senor compact with all the interchangeable lenses combined with good AF is just what I want.

Hi Alex,

I don't think removing the mirror, prism, and viewfinder will reduce the size of the camera very much. If you want an example, have a look at the Sony R1, which has an APS sized sensor.

Cheers
James

I agree with you there, James.

But my point was that making the camera smaller would be higher on the design brief, than it was on either your (1D) or my (D2) cameras. Certainly the 350D and D50 are very small and have all the functions of our cameras and have a viewfinder!

Alex

Yes!

Easy choice. Having started underwater photography composing with the LCD, and shooting with an SLR for the last couple of years, I much prefer the LCD. It allows much greater flexiblity and range in camera placement and being able to see the subject, background and your composition at the same time really helps.

no, I prefer an optical finder. I would miss it all the time. Same for topside, where I focus manually occasionally and like to judge focus thru the viewfinder too.

Julian

Not to beat a dead horse, but Olympus has just announced the E-330 which has many of the features you have listed and retains the OVF. I know that it is an entry level camera and lacks the speed you would want but Olympus does seem to feel that this arrangement may appeal to many. I would not be suprised to see the same concept in a higher end ( 10 MP+) camera in the next twelve months.

Phil

Sony may enter the DSLR market with something similar. And Olympus has already announced one with live view on LCD (but with viewfinder).
I expect more entry level cameras with interchangable lens, but without vf. But not pro or prosumer modells.

IMO ... no ... if i want a small camera I will buy one. My d60 is by no means the smallest dslr .. but is too small for what I would like ... you can't beat the feel of a pro canon body.

Also .. the larger size .. and the well weighted body helps to hold the camera steady .. a smaller camera body with a large 600mm lens on it would be impossible to use .. and I don't see them making 2 versions of the same body for UW use and land use ...

I think what we would all like ot see is a UW Digital RS style system .. that would be the best way of getting rid of the clutter and the junk and limiting our UW size.

But from what I have seen cameras like the d70 in a good housing ... are tiny .. almost comparable to an RS sysytem anyways ... do we need smaller ? doesn't a larger size have some benfits UW too ?

If this hypothetical design includes doing away with the mirror and using an electronic shutter like the P&S cameras instead, then that would solve the slow synch speed issue and allow you to shoot video, again like P&S. The mirror also takes up "thicknes" as it needs space to swing up. Without mirror the camera could perhaps become a bit flatter and thus smaller and lighter. It would also allow the lens to get closer to the sensor, which I understood to be an advantage. (at least there was mention that the smaller size of the APS sensor needed a smaller mirror and APS-optimized lenses could thus get closer without the mirror bumping into them).

Maybe the rumoured new Canon 2D successor will surprise us. After all, the Canon 20Da already has a life feed to its LCD panel.

Bart

No...

I have used a lot of P&S cameras. I really think they lack in the critical focus area. Tough to tell if those eyeballs are sharp...

For topside photography, no. I simply cannot do "serious" work through an LCD - looking through a viewfinder focuses my attention on composition in a way that holding a camera out at arm's length doesnt either. Also, I find that holding a camera against your head makes for a more stable shooting.

Of course, it could just be that I'm used to shooting with my eye against a VF.

For underwater use, I dont care.

Vandit

Can the time-lag between writing the image to LCD and recording the image on the CCD be eliminated?

Surely, the reason for using a DSLR is the (almost) instantaneous response to pressinmg the 'shutter-release' button?

I get very frustrated when I have to use compacts because of this shutter lag. I keep photographing the spaces previously occupied by fast moving subject. I just went on hols with my two kids and the two kids of friends. I gave up with the convenient-to-carry compact and went back to the DSLR. Compacts are not even fast enough to catch the moment when you have four children in the frame.

I think you must only have experience with older compacts (or Canons ). From here, for example, the T7 is quoted as having:
Shutter lag, prefocus 0.012 sec
Shutter lag, full autofocus 0.38 / 0.35 sec (wide angle / telephoto)
There is only an electronic shutter, nothing physical, so that shutter lag (prefocus) number is faster than DSLRs, I think.

Higher resolution LCD displays should also address the critical focus problem, but that's still in the future.

But another issue might be lag in the LCD display itself. I think serious computer gamers don't like using LCD monitors because there is a small delay in the display. I don't think this would affect me.