OVF vs EVF put to rest

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
TrojMacReady
Senior MemberPosts: 8,523
Like?
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest
In reply to Lee Jay, Sep 17, 2012

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

Not a single OVF found in a DSLR will represent the DOF accurately at such an aperture. Biggest reason being the ground glass. An EVF will represent the DOF as it will be captured.

No, it won't, for at least two reasons. First, the displays don't have enough resolution to prevent sampling blur from adding to OOF blur.

Yes it will, for the very reason mentioned in the second point that you didn't quote.

Magnification will obviously decrease DOF, which is why I chose to ignore that point.

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size. A good set of brains knows that when you're magnifying, distances may look larger too. For things like critical macro focusing, what counts is what's in focus and what isn't. For which magnifying provides the most accurate tool.

Second, DOF can't even be defined at capture time, much less displayed, because it's dependent on the final viewing size and distance, neither of which are available at capture time.

In theory, in practise that is only an issue if these were constantly changing to begin with, in which case the whole DOF preview on DSLR's becomes a laughable point anyway.

Which it is, for OVF and EVF.

If you have a very narrow scope. People doing near or fully static photography, for example certain macro work, have valued a good LV implementation for this very reason for years.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow