[regken]

So if Pentax implemented something like this, we could indeed have the magical heads-up display idea -- imagine blinking highlights/lowlights right in the viewfinder.

If some sort of LV is implemented in the OVF I'm afraid my credit card debt will increase some $1,200-$1,400.

[Jodokast96]

Mmm I don't see the point of moaning about any possible HDTV thing.
If you don't care, fine, don't use it. I do not see the problem, really.

I don't think it's moaning about just because lol doesn't care to use them, but rather that they add something not really needed, or in some cases wanted, at the expense of making real improvements in much more important areas. All the new gizmos, gadgets, and do-dads don't mean squat if WB and AF could have been made better but weren't because they wasted time and money on the new "features".

[Marcus]

All the new gizmos, gadgets, and do-dads don't mean squat if WB and AF could have been made better but weren't because they wasted time and money on the new "features".

Ok, fair enough.

But that brings me to a question: Who shoots JPEG? And why?

....

The other advantage would be to review shots on the VF, without the need to move the camera away to look at the LCD. .....

This will work fine only when the mirror is flipped up. Otherwise you see two images, one from the LV another from the lens through mirror causing great confusion. Also when you switch internal LV ON the mirror will automatically flip-up.

It will not be a LCD like Fuji's, but a transparent Electroluminescent film display placed between the mirror and the focusing screen.

[Duck Dodgers]

Ok, fair enough.

But that brings me to a question: Who shoots JPEG? And why?

I'm heading to the USVI soon, for a week. I have two 2GB cards. I will probably shoot jpegs, switching to raw "on-the-fly" for more dramatic shots that I perceive to have a higher chance of being printed. Mainly because I don't know if 4GB is going to be enough.

[Jodokast96]

Ok, fair enough.

But that brings me to a question: Who shoots JPEG? And why?

Well, I shoot both. If I can, I avoid opening up any editor unless totally necessary, so getting a better jpeg is a plus. But your question only addresses WB. Better AF would benefit most people. Also, even though I forgot to, lol also mentioned better noise performance, which would benefit just about everyone as well.

[thibs]

I don't think it's moaning about just because lol doesn't care to use them, but rather that they add something not really needed, or in some cases wanted, at the expense of making real improvements in much more important areas. All the new gizmos, gadgets, and do-dads don't mean squat if WB and AF could have been made better but weren't because they wasted time and money on the new "features".

OK but then it is quite a bit too early to do that.
We dunno what it has and for that matter what it has not.

Now, if it indeed has that HD capability and some other basic feature they should have put in it are not there then, yes, I might moan. This is highly premature, nothing else.

[Jodokast96]

I wasn't really agreeing or disagreeing, just clarifying the point I believe lol was trying to make.

[Marcus]

Well, I shoot both. If I can, I avoid opening up any editor unless totally necessary, so getting a better jpeg is a plus. But your question only addresses WB. Better AF would benefit most people. Also, even though I forgot to, lol also mentioned better noise performance, which would benefit just about everyone as well.

Oh. I get you Jodo.

I take it for granted sometimes that not everyone likes to post process. I should've realized.

[ftpaddict]

Could someone please explain to me why Live View through the viewfinder would be such a big deal? Now a live histogram... that's a completely different story.

[torge]

you answered your own question ...

[quarc]

My hope is the live view in the optical view finder can be magnified so the focus can be checked. Being able to adjust focus without removing your eye from the OVF would, I think, be a big help for those of us using MF and having eye sight that is less than perfect. Being able to see the histogram through the OVF would also be a bonus. Chimping is OK but takes to long and in bright sunlight is not satisfactory for fine tuning focus.

I am expecting smart things like graying areas out of focus to help identify the depth of field. Different new types of autofocus, not just face finding, but more on the moving object type, like follow cars etc. All this will have to be visible in the viewfinder to be really useful. Or why not be able to say, I am now going to take photos of this green skier, so ignore all the white and blow, and give me predicitve focus on the green please.....you probably want o see a frame around where the focus is. Hmm with this the camera should be able to tell you the speed as well, heads up and on the photo....hmm maybe the police can use Pentax in the future instead of lasers or radar :-) (sorry I am getting sleepy :-)

[Mr. The Guy]

Who shoots JPEG? And why?

One application: where you need to shoot alot of pictures in very quick sequence, , ie., sports.
I also switch to jpeg when photographing books (SD cards fill up too fast with RAW) and when doing property inventory for insurance where quality is not that important.
Photojournalists also shoot jpeg because they don't have time to process RAW because of deadlines.

[Marcus]

^ Wow. Thanks Guy. I actually learned something. Totally overlooked them.

[nathancombs]

One application: where you need to shoot alot of pictures in very quick sequence, , ie., sports.
I also switch to jpeg when photographing books (SD cards fill up too fast with RAW) and when doing property inventory for insurance where quality is not that important.
Photojournalists also shoot jpeg because they don't have time to process RAW because of deadlines.

yes jpeg is much faster to post prosses and most photojs i know only shoot jpeg