DSLRs with fold-out displays?

TheAlex

TheAlex

TheAlex

Associate
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Posts
549
Location
Staffordshire
Do any decent ones exist? I'm looking at the likes of the Canon EOS400D and Nikon D40x but they don't have flip-out displays...one of my favourite things about my Powershot G3 is I can easily take photos I wouldn't normally be able to with just a normal viewfinder or display.
 
On most DSLRs you can't view the picture on the display anyway. Only through the viewfinder. You can only use it to display the picture afterwards...
 
Just remember than on the vast majority of DSLRs you cannot use the screen for viewing the picture before you shoot it. You have to use the optical viewfinder, which btw is sooooo much better than any screen!
 
fuji s9500 and 9600 both have folding out displays for overhead and low height shooting, very handy for peering over fences! haha.
 
afaik a couple of the four thirds system cameras do (olympus & another) but iirc there is also a penalty to be paid for doing so re the optical viewfinder.
 
Matt7613 said:
Why would you want to?
Click to expand...
I take it you are a really serious person in "real life".
The function is there so you can use it when there are crowds of people at say, a concert and you are not at the front. You can easily hold the camera above your head and still frame the pictures well.
It also works in reverse so you can hold the camera low and not get dirty in the process.
The Eye View Finder (evf) is also spot on, I tend to use it more anyway as its high colour and resolution.
 
To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag. :)
 
Yep, a bit out of my price-range! For what technical reasons don't most DSLRs display the image before you take it?

I'm wondering whether to just upgrade to a Canon Powershot G7 or Powershot S5 IS, though if I want to get more serious about my photography should I be going for an SLR?
 
brendy said:
To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag. :)
Click to expand...

Don't feed the trolls.

:rolleyes:
 
TheAlex said:
For what technical reasons don't most DSLRs display the image before you take it?
Click to expand...
The way DSLRs work is that there is a mirror in front of the sensor which reflects light up in to the view finder, then when you press the shutter, the mirror moves up and the camera takes a picture, and it is only then there is light on the sensor. Since normally there isn't an image on the sensor, the camera can't show a preview.

Have a read at this How Stuff Works Article for a bit more if you are interested :)

Point and shoot digital cameras don't use a mirror and just display what is currently on the sensor, on the screen at the back which is how you can see what you are pointing it at.

If a fold out display and live preview on the LCD is important, then you would be better off looking at a bridge camera (styled like a DSLR but works like a point and shoot) like the ones brendy mentioned earlier.
 
The Fuju S9600 looks quite good, and cheap too.

I'd forgotten about the How Stuff Works site, I used to use it all the time when I was at uni. Cheers!
 
brendy said:
To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag. :)
Click to expand...

Hmm.. The difference will be that the dslr will be sharper and the film would give a better latitude.. oh and that after the initial investment the dslr will be cheaper in long run, quicker for getting the image to the pc for editing/publishing (internet etc)

Would you loosely class a Hasselblad H2 with PO P45 digital back class as a dSLR as i'll take your challenge, I'd have to downscale in PS to 9MP however. :D

The 1D Mark III live view feature is not really for shooting like it is used on many digital compacts, it is a focus finder option as extended use heats up the ccd (this is what i saw/was told from my trip to PMA's) and causes noise so really no proper dSLR does do this. Will have to find out for myself in a week :)
 
Last edited:
brendy said:
To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag. :)
Click to expand...
How about depth of field for a start? :)
 
brendy said:
To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag. :)
Click to expand...


DoF, Sharpness (depending on lens), ISO is far far far better, shutter speeds, focus points...

need I go on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom