Bit of a con, really ... ?

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a decent DSLR.

Sure, but the LCD is to review the shot after you've taken it. You use the optical viewfinder when you're taking your shot.

Correct.

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted it to.

You might be surprised. I had a client much younger than myself who was confused about the difference between a flat screen CRT vs an LCD screen.

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known as NTSC standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1 monitors for many years afterwards. Indeed probably still are.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

Calibrating your monitor doesn't mean it renders color correctly. It means that it renders it according to certain standards.

Are there any?

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending on the film you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you developed and printed.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color balance in real time.

Forgive me, but how something is spec'd does not mean that the real-world implementation -- regardless of its name -- meets the spec.

Of course, color TV was so late arriving in GB, it's likely that only the improved red phosphors were used.

For that kind of money, it better perform like those X-ray glasses you used to be able to buy in the back of comic books!

The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated, highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre. In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio professional than the amateur.

Regards,

I looked at a Sony ( I think ) one last year with a particular project in mind. There were only two things I remember about it - the LCD view screen flipped out and could be angled, which was handy - and the image in the viewfinder was bloody awful.

I bought a Canon.

Regards,

I think the new 500D and 50D models have this feature too, and it's something I've got my eye on. I had a look at the specs of the new 5D a while back and I'm sorely tempted...

Regards,

Finally the penny's dropped.

Just shoot in RAW. The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data. You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you want when you "develop" your pictures.

I have done a few product shots before and the best way to work in the studio is a laptop and a data cable to the camera. I find the LCD is virtually redundant for static studio work. More important is a high speed data link, USB is very slow.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Some sort of red, or orange, or... how the heck could I describe it?

They're eyes Tim, but not as we know them!

Andy

Virtually all cameras that shoot in RAW can also do jpegs simultaneously. Some (most?) also allow you to "develop" in the camera