Quote:
...But why not remote the display (and other controls!) to a laptop, via wireles/cat5 cable, and use the beautiful big displays (15" and up, ultra bright, HDTV aspect) that even cheap laptops have...

Well the setup you describe might work out well in a studio setting, but I suspect it would be harder to cart a PC with 15"+ display and all the other gadgets you would need around than it would to haul an 8x10 view camera (beliee me, I haul a laptop around. No fun.) Thus, the ability to have a self-contained picture-making device is seen as pretty much of a necessity when out "in the field".

Also, trying to look at an LCD screen - even one that is 15"+ in size - is not easy to do in bright sunlight (again, I am speaking from personal experience.)

Does the camera have to look like the camera we all know and love in the future? I am not sure it does, but I suspect the SLR design (or something like it) will be around for some time to come.

Quote:
The first question is: is SLR as a way of designing DIGITAL still cameras even a good way to go, let alone the best?

Yes and no. If you haven't used an Digital SLR (dSLR) then you've been missing out. However, a dSLR isn't for everyone. If you want a camera to take snapshots of the kids, flowers in your garden, whatever then a Point & Shoot is probably best. But if you want to get into some serious photography then a dSLR can't be beat. There are different lenses for different situations. Since buying my first dSLR, a Canon Digital Rebel, I've touched my P&S Canon A120 maybe 6 times in the past year. And 3 of those times was to loan it to someone else.

Quote:
...hence any ambitious design has to be done as an slr to be accepted in the market?

Different technologies for different strokes. Can you put a Ferrari engine in a Volkswagon Bug? I see way more P&S cameras than dSLR. Not everyone needs a dSLR.

Quote:
Isn't the slr an ingenious and venerable design paradigm invented to allow ttl view finders in the context of a film blocking direct viewing?

What?

Quote:
With digital sensors having replaced film, isn't viewing the image as detected by the sensor the best possible way to frame a shot?

The viewfinder doesn't see 100% of the shot, granted. But most are about 90% - 95% viewable. Not that big of a deal to me. What pisses me off is how a P&S is not in a photographic ratio. They make P&S camera sensors to fill the screen of a computer, not the frame of a 4x6 or larger without cropping.

Quote:
Sure, I see that the little 2-3" LCD's on the cameras are inadequate. But why not remote the display...

You can do this however who wants to carry a huge monitor everywhere with them. Imagine the battery pack!

Quote:
Are any of the other advanced features found on high end SLR cameras really tied to the SLR idea, by anything but prejudice and marketing?

Such as? But anyways you're tied to technology not only marketing. dSLR and P&S are different technologies. Some are coming out with P&S cameras that have many dSLR features. I think Sony just did. But if I am going to throw $600 at that type of camera why not just buy a dSLR anyways. I just got a Digital Rebel XT with kit lens for $584 from Dell (after rebate).

Quote:
I have another personal reason for not using the viewfinder on my camera. I am 55 years old and cannot focus that close, although my distance vision and color perception is fine. I suspect this a pretty common situation.

There are some that due to physical impairment will be unable to use a dSLR. Sorry, but it happens. It will eventually happen to me.

Quote:
I'd very much like to discuss these ideas rationally. I'm here to learn, not to rant.

Unfortunately your "discussion" come across as a rant. You've made up your mind that dSLR's are unnecessary and should not be manufactured. The fact is that digital has changed everything, including photography. I never bought a film SLR because it costs $15 to develop a roll of 36 shots. I've taken over 2,800 shots on my 20D since December. I would have spent $1,200 on developing alone! And at say $4 a roll of film that would be an additional $300. So spending $835 on my 20D actually saved me in the long run. But I didn't include the cost of all the lenses I've bought too.

Is is a cult? No. Is it the best thing that has happened to photography in a long time? Yes. I love photography and look forward to many more years and actuations.

Actually, rangefinders were the cult, and SLRs were radical and allowed us to see through our lenses

As mentioned, you can shoot a DSLR "tethered" and see it all on a big monitor. Its done all the time. You may to take the shot first to see it, if the cam does not have live video out, but its very workable.

Paul

www.chaplo.com
www.paulchaplo.com
www.imagestock.us

Quote:

I have another personal reason for not using the viewfinder on my camera. I am 55 years old and cannot focus that close, although my distance vision and color perception is fine. I suspect this a pretty common situation.

This threads a little old but here goes.

I'm not sure where it is on other cameras but on Canons there is a little dial called the "Dioptric adjustment knob"(apparently not a dial ) next to the viewfinder that focuses your viewfinder.

As 55 years old and cannot focus at short distance, the SLR is the solution. Thru the SLR viewfinder you will see what you will get.
This benefit is in addition to the fast respose and high performance picture processor used on SLR cameras.

Quote:
I have another personal reason for not using the viewfinder on my camera. I am 55 years old and cannot focus that close, although my distance vision and color perception is fine. I suspect this a pretty common situation.

I don't know if somebody else has brought this up or if you've thought of this or even if it will really help, but I know that at last Canon with their EOS Digital Line of SLRs has some level of adjustment available to assist in focusing the viewfinder to the photographers eye. There is an adjustment right on the camera, and there are also eyepecies available with such adjustments.

I personally use the viewfinder and the viewfinder only to frame a shot. Sometimes people ask me why I would spend so much money on a camera if you can't even see the image you are taking in the LCD. (in other words why would anybody buy an SLR) For one, a typical SLR allows the photographer much more creative control over the picture. Exposure and Focus can be either automatic or manual, which is extremely useful. Secondly, I find that my SLR is better and much faster than my old Point-and-Shoot Digital
(which actually belonged to my Parents...). Perhaps this is just a consequence of the development of Technology over time, but I know I would never even consider purchasing anything less than an SLR for my own use.

I hope this has helped you...
~ DoC