Viewfinder vs. LCD Monitor

>>2723543
if there's light going into the viewfinder then the image you are seeing in the lcd monitor might be a bit different from the finished work, because the light going into the viewfinder will distort the image, 99% of the time, it really doesn't make a big difference, but please, don't make a bad habbit and everytime you shoot with the lcd monitor make sure to cover the viewfinder, a lot of camera straps have a little plastic cover to use in the viewfinder on those situations

>>2723549
> you shoot with the lcd monitor make sure to cover the viewfinder

The fuck? The mirror is up when you use liveview, there's no light going into the viewfinder...

>>2723583
The mirrors are transculent beam splitters to allow light to go into the bottom of the mirrorbox for metering and AF sensors.

File: 2653211067_e26d5e3b77_z.jpg (287KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1024x681px

>>2723583
You wanna bet?

>>2723645
>film
Not even once

>>2723583
>doesn't know why eyepiece covers exist
Mirror up isn't light tight bro.

>>2723651
Just tested it out. It is noticable in M mode metering, but the actual photos show difference of 0.1-0.2 EV in the middle, down to almost zero in highlights.
I say it can be important in studio and situations needing high precision, like macro and stuff, but everyday shooting there is little to no difference and you will be adjusting it in post anyway without even knowing it is there.

>>2723543
Also stop watching stupid chinese cartoon shows. It is bad for you.

>>2723668
Yeah, it's mainly a big deal when doing astro in my experience

>>2723678
But there is not much light at night to begin with

>>2723683
Long exposures homes. It makes a real difference when you're stacking like 40 images (read as magnifying light 40ish times).

>>2723685
Stacking is not really about magnifying light, senpai, it's about effective exposure time and noise control.
But yeah, I see your point. I'll put the viewfinder cap into my astro accesories pouch.

>>2723688

It's totally about magnifying light.

>>2723697
Details, man!
It's all about details. It won't magically magnify the light hitting your sensor. Have you ever studied basic physics?

>>2723706
Depends on blending mode, but quite often, stacking is explicitly used to increase the exposure time, which is, in effect magnifying light. E.g. 25 stacked 4 second exposures = 1 100 second exposure. Why do it this way instead of bulb mode? Less noise.

>>2723756
Seriously, go to school before you post again.

>>2723758
>>2723706

I can't tell if you're pretending to be a moron or are legitimately impaired.

>>2723760
Or having a degree in physics, material engineering and have been doing spectroscopy half my life.
I know what I'm talking about.
There is so much to it if I started explaining things it would be years of lecture.
Seriously, go to school, study physics, light and sampling photons. This would be a whole course of a degree with specializing in astronomy. It actually worth it.

>>2723765
>Or having a degree in physics, material engineering and have been doing spectroscopy half my life.
>I know what I'm talking about.

You don't though. It's bizarre.

>>2723767
You do statistics from your samples to determine the luminance of a pixel. The more samples you have the more accurately you can determine the luminance of a pixel. This is what DSS, Registax or Photoshop does. You can't get a result value when there is not enough signal to set a value for a pixel, just look up quantum efficiency. You will never get light magnification from stacking simply because your sensor or film has limitations. If you are thinking additive stacking, then you just add the noise together to create more noise, your SNR will not change. Nobody who has a brain would do this.
Astronomers gather up data, massive amounts of data from more and more sensitive instruments to determine if that few pixel blob is part of a nebula or a star cluster or a distant galaxy and what materials are those consist of.
This is a very deep field of science and other than the collection of the data is mostly hardcore math and statistics. Not your high school math or Calculus 101.
No magical fairy light magnification whatsoever.

Like I said, if you are really interested, get into school.

>>2723543
>buy dslr
>brag about small and dim rabal ovf
>use liveview for shooting everytime.

>>2723779
>not buying a Pentax for less money
>not getting bright pentaprism viewfinder
>still complaining about Canon

>>2723543
get a mirrorless.
a6000.

>>2723668
Holy fuck they are japanese anime most likely.
Stop being an intolerant old shitbag.

>>2723824
mad chinese spotted.

File: Zz9Xbog.jpg (5KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x200px

>>2723824
>Holy fuck they are japanese anime most likely.

>>2723543
Yes, but your solution to just not use the OVF at all is pretty unusual and hints at the fact that you don't enjoy or need it. Seems like you would be much better served flipping your DSLR and getting a A5000, A5100, A6000 or some other mirrorless camera. Liveview use on DSLRs is really awful compared to even a cheap mirrorless. Responsiveness and autofocus mainly.

>>2723543
Please use the viewfinder. In liveview the AF and metering is done by the sensor itself. It is slow and oh so not accurate.

Also - you have a f*cking DSLR. The main selling point of DSLR is the viewfinder ... if you dont use it, then you would be better of with something mirrorless, like a compact with switchable lenses (like olympus PEN)

holy SHIT.
Last night I was trying to do some half assed flipped lens macros on my desk, and my LED lamp above for lighting, and I was wondering why my images were being overexposed despite the live view showing the exposure. This would be why! The lamp was shining straight into the OVF and causing a light leak.
The more you know.

>>2724048

lol, that wasn't it.