It’s not required, but it’s still superior. That’s the one thing that I lament with digital cameras, the loss of the optical view finder in most small models. I’ll gladly give up LCD size for a view finder that allows me to compose, track, and frame shots in a superior way. Trying to track a fast moving skier on a bright sunny day is nearly impossible without a view finder. I can still find a few models but they are getting more scarce with every passing year.
Definitely agree with you on this one.
But that’s not inherent in the technology. That’s just a design problem.
That’s why almost all DSLRs still have optical viewfinders.
It’s kind of inherent in the definition of a Single Lens Reflex camera that you have an optical viewfinder. You could have something very similar with only a digital viewfinder, but it wouldn’t be an SLR anymore. 
Digital imaging sensors are inherently much more sensitive than film; that’s why research astronomers were among the first to replace film with CCD detectors.
Unfortunately low-end digital cameras have very small sensors, which can negate the high efficiency. Still, most digital cameras can operate at an equivalent of ISO 800 or so without significant noise. You might want to try using a higher ISO setting in your camera.
I would argue that the Sony A77, for example, is a true SLR (i.e. with a reflective mirror in the optical path) with a digital viewfinder. It has a fixed pellicle mirror that is only used to feed the focusing sensors.
Part of my current job is to scan legal records and then convert them from digital media to microfilm. The reasoning is this…technology changes constantly. Those carefully perserved VCR tapes are trash because nobody has a VCR player. Those big reels of magnetic tape? Are they even still good, even if someone had a way to look at them? Self burnt CD’s are only good for about 10 years before the data starts degrading.
Migrating electronic data often causes loss of quality…or the data just gets lost.
Film, if properly stored, is supposed to last for 500 years, and all the technology needed to read/view it is a light sorce and a magnifying glass.
So…according to Federal, State and the County I work for…any records that need to be kept for longer than 10 years must be microfilmed before we can destroy the paper.
Paper also lasts a very long time, but a box of paper also takes up a lot of space. Part of my work day includes filming records.
As to Kodak, they are moving to the UK. This is a problem because most of the microfilm labs here in the US has Kodak processors and writers and use Kodak chemicals.
Yes, but it’s a much bigger limitation if I’m backcountry skiing for 8 hours and need to lug a DSLR up and down a mountain. I use a compact camera attached to my sternum strap and that’s hard to do with a DSLR.
But as mentioned, it’s part of the design of a DSLR. There are many new cameras called ICL (InterChangable Lenses) or the prism cameras from Sony that offer much of the advantage of a DSLR but in a smaller package. But you lose the optical view finder.
Could someone tell me why you’d want an optical viewfinder instead of seeing the image on a digital display?
Telemark already did in post #21
Also, the optical properties of an SLR viewfinder mean it’s more like looking at a large screen at a comfortable distance, as opposed to a small screen a few inches away - the angle subtended may be the same, but the perceived focal distance of the SLR’s virtual image is further away. (I may have mangled some of the terminology there)
Specifically, I would like an optical viewfinder that (a) shows exactly what is going to the sensor, and (b) doesn’t freeze or go black when you fire the shutter.
In the old days of film, there was a trade-off - either you had a separate viewfinder, which gave you a continuous view but wasn’t an exact “through the lens” view, or you had an SLR-type viewfinder which showed you the actual view through the lens but momentarily went black when you fired the shutter, as the mirror swung across to divert the light to the film.
I assume that trade-off still holds if you want a truly optical viewfinder? But surely it should be possible to have a viewfinder that doesn’t show a lengthy freeze-frame of each shot you take? It makes it virtually impossible to pan with a fast-moving subject and keep them in the frame for more than a few shots.
It’s still a problem with current technology. The LCD in the electronic view finder lags a bit and it’s very noticeable when tracking a moving object. I can use my Canon S3 with an electronic viewfinder for tracking skiers but I know to lead my subject and anticipate where they will go because I can’t rely on instantaneous tracking from the EVF. It’s much easier with a DSLR and real optical viewfinder.
Cameras with small zooms can have real offset optical viewfinders but once you start using a bigger zoom lens the problem is that the viewfinder will take up too much space. It’s another zoom lens attached to the top of the camera and if you’re trying to duplicate a 24x zoom lens that the camera uses it ends making the camera too big. You can make an EVF that doesn’t take up too much space but 1) most people never use them and 2) the people who want a viewfinder prefer an OVF.
Thanks for the replies…does anybody know if Fuji (Japan) is dropping their photographic film division?
Also, the guy who makes Polaroid film (the “Impossible Project”)-is his operation profitable?
Talk about buggy whips in the automobile age!
There’s no evidence that they are dropping film. They’re certainly not investing as much in film as they are in digital, but I’m sure they’re still making money from that division.
I assume it will survive the way that calligraphy has survived the printing press, as an artistic medium (although calligraphy doesn’t require complicated machinery). Now that I think of it, though, what can traditional photography artistically do that digital photography can’t? Could you even tell the difference?
Speak for yourself, pal. I still have my ca. 2000 S-VHS player, which I think must be nearly the high-water mark for consumer VHS tape players.
Still works too… a couple of years ago, we dusted it off when my wife had to watch a bunch of grocery store surveillance footage (on VHS) for a court case she was working on.
About film photography… there’s just really not much that film offers that digital photography doesn’t. You get some dynamic range relative to a CCD/CMOS sensor, but at the expense of limited exposures, the hassle of processing, and all the other annoying things about film.
Plus, there are software packages out there that let you emulate film to a degree that only the very most discerning and picky pro art photographers would really quibble about. (google “DXO Film Pack” for an example) Setting a photo to say… Tri-X 400 really does look like it was taken with Tri-X 400. It also looks like Kodachrome 25 when it’s set to that. Of course, this lets you do some weird stuff like make a picture taken indoors at ISO 6400 look like Kodachrome 25, but to me, that opens up a whole different set of opportunities.
Huh? There’s still an actual X-ray beam. It just hits a digital sensor rather than a piece of film.
Now, I’m sure the digital sensor can be made to be more sensitive, and therefore a weaker X-ray beam can be used, but I’m not sure that’s a significant enough amount.
As Cal mentioned up thread, holography generally requires film. Good film. BIG pieces of film. And there isn’t really any other easy or cheap(ish) ways to do good holography besides film. If all the film producers go tits up and holographers have to start trying to make film in their basements that niche hobby/activity will be in badddd shape.
Imagine making a camera sensor that is the size of sheet of paper (at least). With extremely small individual sensor areas. And making it 3 dimensional. Or in other words you have the equivalent of hundreds to thousands of these large sensors stacked on top of each other. And you would need two types of these things. One being a sensor type mechanism and the other would have to have different characteristics for displaying the hologram you recorded. So, you most likely need the worlds fanciest sensor and the worlds fanciest LCD display.
Thats sorta what you have when you do some types of film holography. While we MAY get there one day and can build something like that cheaply I don’t think it will be around the corner anytime soon.
Less exposure is less exposure, plus there are fewer retakes due to ruined film (which is admittedly pretty rare), and shorter exposures mean fewer retakes due to patient movement. All of that can add up.
I was an X-ray tech for a few years many decades ago, so I have some knowledge of the field, but it was strictly film then so I can’t say for sure just how much more sensitive digital equipment is, but since visible light CCDs are more sensitive, and since X-rays images are actually light images of fluorescent screens that glow from the radiation (at least that’s how it was done back in the day) then it stands to reason that shorter exposures would be required since the sensors require less light.
ETA: I don’t think it would be, as you put it “a weaker X-ray beam”, since it still requires the same energy to penetrate bone, etc, but more sensitivity would mean a shorter exposure at that energy.