Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
loftus

How many use Live View or think they would?

Live View Poll  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you or would you use LiveView

    • Yes
      16
    • No
      20


Recommended Posts

The LiveView concept is interesting, but as yet I'm not sure if it's a feature I might occasionally use, or something that will become the predominant way I take pictures. At the moment I like taking my pictures with the nice dark frame of a viewfinder, and I can't seem to get comfortable with LiveView for serious composing and framing of my photographs. Looking at the new Micro 4/3 system, I wonder if it would just be a high quality P&S or something that could concievably replace my DSLR.

I'd be interested to hear what the experience of others is, particularly those who use LiveView routinely.

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live View? I dun't need no steenking Live View! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't use a DSLR before, so for me starting with "Live View" was a natural progression of upgrading from a PnS. Plus being painfully nearsighted, I wear one of the "bugeye" HydroOptix masks, which would make using a viewfinder a bit more awkward, although probably not impossible. I have gotten to like using the viewfinder for above-water shots though....my glasses don't get in the way as much as the bugeye mask :).

 

Basically after diving for a couple years with a prescription mask, and feeling like I had blinders on due to the combined FOV loss of an air/glass/water interface in addition to a corrective lens (I likely had less than 90 degrees FOV, and had so much 'magnification' effect I often dangled a hand below me to be able to tell how far from the reef I was) I'm addicted to the wide FOV of the HO mask, and don't really want to 'leave' that even when shooting. First motivation for me is the dive, the pictures come along for the ride. Maybe when I get more focused on photography specifically that might change.

 

I suspect that the primary liveview users will be those who switched from PnS after LV was available, and those who have tried the few near-zero-lag live view options...I don't see the Canikon live-view options out there now as terribly viable, and anyone who's used DSLR's (or film SLRs) underwater for years will not need or want the "crutch" as they're already used to the viewfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Live view can be indispensible when trying to compose a macro shot. If there were no delay, it could be useful for other things as well like keeping Emma at arms length :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As many of you know, I shoot a fair bit of "wreckscapes" on a tripod. So, in theory, Live View should help things quite a bit without the shutter lag etc. coming into the way.

 

But - and this is a big word, so I repeat it, But - in my typical shooting conditions (and filtering) the view on the LCD is so dark that it is even less usable than the almost totally unusable viewfinder. Which is a pity, since I had some moderately high hopes of actually being able to see what I'm shooting for a change when changing to the D300...

 

timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Nikon form, No! In Olympus DSLR and compact form, Yes!

 

That said, if I owned a Nikon camera with this feature I'd probably think of a type of shot to make the most of liveview.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started underwater photography with liveview. I think I would use it fairly often if I had it and the shutter lag is not too bad.

 

I can't think of a type of shot that can only be done with liveview; however, I do still see situations where I can get a more desirable angle on a shot if I didn't have to include space for my fat head for camera placement. It's true for both WA and macro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too began underwater photography with live-view. I can think of situations live-view would be advantageous and I might very well utilize it underwater for certain situations such as tight shots, etc, but then again, after using a Aquatica AquaView Finder… :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugyfot does not support Liveview on their D300 housing so I have never even been able to use it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I bought my sony a100 the a300/350 were on the horizon. That time I considered LV as a not so important feature and the UW support for these two sony was not sure, so went for a100/ikelite combo.

Now I regret a bit my decision. I missed the LV a lot when I tried to do ground level photos of my daughter and was lazy to lay on the ground (or it was wet or dirty). I did lots of random pictures and later selected the good ones (great advantage of digital).

I have only six dives with the new rig but I felt couple of times that the LV could help or make the approach of the subject and composition easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hugyfot does not support Liveview on their D300 housing so I have never even been able to use it...

 

I have a Hugy and just switch it on at the surface and keep using it all the dive. Or rather would, were it not slightly unusable as I said earlier.

 

And oh, I run the 10,5mm on fixed focus too...

 

timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would use it for those shots where you just can't get the housing and your head into the available space. However my camera doesn't have the option and I wouldn't buy a camera on the basis of having or not having live view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tried LV on a borrowed EOS40D but did not like it at all. there is just no use in making it more complicated just to get live view ... focussing takes so long ... basicly you're out of focus again until you get to take the pic ... at least if you shoot macro with a small DOF like i do. i prefer the 45degree viewfinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used the Live View feature of my Canon 40D to shoot some promotional photos of products for my 'day job'. I used a tri-pod and a 2 second shutter delay; the results were fantastic. The 10x manual focus makes focusing spot-on. I was extremely pleased. Of course, this was all done in a static environment with light boxes, etc. in a darken room - on dry land.

 

I then tried to use the Live View feature u/w on a dive trip, free hand - it never worked well. Too much motion.

 

IMHO, Canon's 40D Live View has it's place - on a tri-pod, in a static environment and probably never on a for-leisure dive trip.

 

TomC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have used the Live View feature of my Canon 40D to shoot some promotional photos of products for my 'day job'. I used a tri-pod and a 2 second shutter delay; the results were fantastic. The 10x manual focus makes focusing spot-on.

 

TomC

 

I use the 40D Live view in more or less the same way, and there it really shines. Supermacro with more or less static objects are so much easier to do with the live view, and I use it a lot for that. I have no experience under water with live view, but would very much like to have the opportunity.

 

Bent C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there are times when live view would benefit a photographer. As mentioned, to keep Emma at bay. In other words, when snapping the sharks, it helps to be situationally aware and having the camera pressed up against your face makes that a bit difficult.

 

As for "leaving it on" in live view, you really shouldn't do that on the D300. As I understand it, its not recommended to keep it going for more than 45 minutes. I suppose you can always power down when not using it and have it ready to go on powering up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought LiveView only worked (Canon) in the Auto modes and didn't with TV, AP or M ?

(Got a 350D so no live view for me.)

 

 

Cheers,

Richard B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for "leaving it on" in live view, you really shouldn't do that on the D300. As I understand it, its not recommended to keep it going for more than 45 minutes."

 

If the main sensor is used for live view the continuous using may develop heat causing noisier pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, the problem with this poll is that "LiveView" right now is not at all a level playing field. There are differing implementations, MOST of which either heat the main sensor, require an extra mirror flip thus add shutter delay, or have slower or even manual autofocus requirements. Who in their right mind would want to use that underwater? (Well, maybe on a wreck shot with a tripod and remote triggering, but otherwise...)

 

Olympus had a faster implementation in the E330 (with still some limitations - no real WB or compensation visible in the 'live view' even with A mode) but abandoned it so far. (Micro-4/3rds might bring it back to one degree or another). Sony has a faster implementation now with the A300 and A350. But otherwise, it just ain't a "real" feature yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We may also twist a bit the discussion by raising the question: “What would be the minimum requirement for live view for your underwater photography demand?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be useful shooting macro with a little surge. I would just switch to manual focus and time the shot for the point of best focus.

Edited by nopro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, the problem with this poll is that "LiveView" right now is not at all a level playing field. There are differing implementations, MOST of which either heat the main sensor, require an extra mirror flip thus add shutter delay, or have slower or even manual autofocus requirements. Who in their right mind would want to use that underwater? (Well, maybe on a wreck shot with a tripod and remote triggering, but otherwise...)

 

Olympus had a faster implementation in the E330 (with still some limitations - no real WB or compensation visible in the 'live view' even with A mode) but abandoned it so far. (Micro-4/3rds might bring it back to one degree or another). Sony has a faster implementation now with the A300 and A350. But otherwise, it just ain't a "real" feature yet.

I could imagine a situation where Live View could be used just like a viewfinder is now, with a hood around it etc.

 

 

 

I think it might be useful shooting macro with a little surge. I would just switch to manual focus and time the shot for the point of best focus.

How good is LiveView for seeing if something is perfectly in focus or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could imagine a situation where Live View could be used just like a viewfinder is now, with a hood around it etc.

 

Yes, that's how I use it - even without a hood. I'm not too fond of the idea of putting blinders on underwater. :) But still, it's only usable as a framing aid equal to the VF if there's no added delay caused by using it instead of an OVF...or else you may as well be using a Point-n-shoot with a fairly good lens, and taking lots of pictures of fish-butt or having to anticipate way more than a DLSR user does. So again, its the inequal implementations that kill it for more use I think.

 

How good is LiveView for seeing if something is perfectly in focus or not?

 

Depends on several factors, including the screen (brightness, resolution), and again, how fast the shot is taken after you pull the trigger. You could ask the same question about an optical viewfinder, couldn't you? If the view is too small and/or dim (because of conditions, not implying anything about OVFs themselves), while shooting shallow DOF shots, it's hard to tell exactly where the super crisp focus point is. If your mask or your personal eyesight makes it hard to use a particular OVF, it can be difficult too. On a tripod, in a controlled setting, either would work great: it's easy to manually toggle in and out a tad and visually tell when your OVF view is focused where you want. On a LV, most all of them can flip the mirror out of the way and use the 'main' sensor, to permit manual focus with zoomed in views, which help you tell even if the screen isn't as "crisp" as the optical view. But again, neither of these applies terribly well underwater in most cases, since we don't often have tripods or otherwise the positional stability in ourselves or our subjects to suffer the extra mirror flip down for metering and back up for the shot.

 

I really think the critical factors (as gobiodon indicated we should identify) is a Live View implementation useful for UW shooting would be:

--no additional delay introduced vs. shooting with the viewfinder (applies for both autofocus speed as well as avoiding additional mirror flips or the like)

--no impairment to autofocus ability vs. shooting with the viewfinder

--adequately bright, clear, and "live" (as in frames-per-second or screen refresh interval) monitor for use as the "Live View" viewfinder

--LV screen correctly mimics a viewfinder in terms of showing depth of field and framing (e.g. not grossly under or over cropped)

--no adverse impact on the quality of the captured image in terms of added sensor noise caused by heating of the sensor, or whatnot

--no or (minimal enough so as not to be burdensome) impact on battery life

 

Of all of these the only implementations that can sort of deliver all the above are the sole, now orphaned, Olympus E330, and the Sony A300 / A350. With perhaps some caveats on screen brightness and clarity, and battery life, which could always be improved. Note that if there's no "difference" in LV vs. using an optical viewfinder, then other factors become more important overall such as the camera's autofocus performance, noise and image quality, etc etc. Many here would not buy an Oly E-330 even when it was new because of the whole small vs. FF sensor argument, or other factors relating to AF speed/zones, dynamic range, noise, etc. regardless of their doing LV "right". So assuming there was a standard definition of LV that everyone followed, then the discussion would again be just about other features and some would use it and some would not. Then it becomes a 'shooting style' question. Instead right now LV seems to be a buzzword to most manufacturers that's only useful on a tripod or in a studio, and really has no bearing outside of that. (I'd actually say it's worse - the halfarsed implementation seems to be actively giving people the impression that "LV" as a concept is poor or useless, vs. just "this LV implementation ain't great".)

 

Other bonuses that should be possible with an electronic viewfinder would include live white balance or other tonal effects (more for JPGs than RAW shots), live histogram, continuous live metering perhaps, etc. That's why I think Oly's Micro 4/3rds announcement might presage a return of an E-330-like future DSLR from Olympus, as research necessary to make the mirror-less design work just might trickle 'up' as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...