In an electronic viewfinder, the mirror and pentaprism are eliminated and the same image displayed on the sensor is projected into the viewfinder. This makes mirrorless cameras more accurate than compact cameras while also cutting down on bulkiness.
Posted on 11/25/2015 9:34:53 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
The F-35 fighter jet, developed by Lockheed Martin, has a fascinating accessory. The pilot’s $400,000 helmet enables him or her to see through the jet’s skin, using a number of specially positioned cameras.
(Excerpt) Read more at js.washingtonpost.com ...
BUT, at $400k per copy, you'd better not leave it in the bar while riding home from the air base on your motorcycle.
Cool idea. Too bad its the size of a beach ball, and in the slowest, poorest turning, accelerating aircraft we’ve got in the inventory.
They are only charging the Brits $393,000.00...might be a currency exchange thing. Just don’t eject...might snap your neck (need a “HANS”?): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3354543/posts
Obama/aka Barry the Brave, has to have someone read him the newspaper to know what’s happening ....
...or so the media reports (dutifully)
If it comes with a $30,000 hammer, I’ll take it!
I wonder what is worse, drowning in vomit in your mask, or having your neck snapped by anything over 4 G's.
I bought an Olympus OM-D E-M10 with an Electronic Viewfinder. I was really concerned about jitter, lag, graininess, etc, but it is excellent in all respects. It sure makes the camera compact by getting rid of the pentaprism you find in true DSLRs.
Now obviously not in the same league as this helmet, but the technology does get better. I can see where lag and jumpiness of image would really nauseate pilots.
Of course, with the camera, I don’t have an external reference so I wouldn’t notice the lag. With the helmet you are overlaying the image on the real scene you see before you, so it has to be instantaneous. That has to be very hard to do.
Might be cheaper to just develop an invisible plane.
What is an Electronic Viewfinder?
In an electronic viewfinder, the mirror and pentaprism are eliminated and the same image displayed on the sensor is projected into the viewfinder. This makes mirrorless cameras more accurate than compact cameras while also cutting down on bulkiness.
Thanks, sounds cool.
I am really happy with my Olympus OM-D E-M10. Performance as good as an SLR, but much smaller and easier to carry.
That looks like a very nice camera. I have an old Pentax DSLR, a very old Nikon SLR and cheap digital camera. I use the cheap camera the most. It is the easiest to use, does videos too and the pictures are not bad.
I had a couple of Nikon compact Coolpix cameras, but got fed up with the terrible shutter lag — I’d push the shutter button and sometimes the camera would think for seconds before firing. This was mainly in low-light situations. Picture quality was excellent, but the lag was terrible and one of the main reasons I finally upgraded.
My Pentax has the same problem (shutter lag) I hate it. If film was not so expensive now I’d stick with the old Nikon when I wanted to take quality pictures. I really like that old Nikon. I could take the viewfinder off and use it like it was a twin reflex camera. Plus it has a spot and averaging light meter. It was/is a very good camera.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.