Canikon MUST switch to EVFs

Started 5 months ago | Discussion thread
Airless
Regular MemberPosts: 267
Like?
Re: Canikon MUST switch to EVFs
In reply to chlamchowder, 5 months ago

chlamchowder wrote:

You made the same mistake as Jerry and misread my post. I'm not talking about the majority of OVF users. The majority of OVF users don't care what type of viewfinder they have because they don't know any better, they just bought something called Canikon because they were familiar with the name, or that's what someone told them to buy.

I strongly disagree with this. People do a lot of research before dumping out a lot of money to get a DSLR. While name familiarity is one factor, it definitely isn't the only factor. Part of why some young people buy DSLRs is to get an optical finder.

The vast majority of people purchasing DSLRs don't even know that EVFs exist, much less actually looked through one. Some or even most of them may know that it has a viewfinder, compared to their P&S, but that's the extend of their knowledge or interest, that they can stick their eye in a hole and frame the shot that way.

The group of people who I believe are mostly old are the group of people who are cognizant of OVFs and EVFs and still prefer OVFs. I believe that if you are in that group then you are not a typical member. I don't have any demographic studies to support my belief, only empirical observation, so I will not defend it to any greater extent than that.

Again, I disagree your belief that those who know about both OVFs and EVFs are mainly old, unless high school and college students fit you definition of old. Most of them probably haven't seen the newest EVFs, but if they heard all the internet hype about how that 2.4M dot unit is almost as good as an optical finder and then proceeded to try it out, I think they'll be sorely disappointed.

It sounds like you are either vainly projecting your own observations onto an entire demographic of camera users and have insulated yourself against the formidable block of people who actually do prefer EVFs, even as currently designed. I actually agree that the vast majority of people who are cognizant of OVFs and EVFs are younger people, but most of that group either prefers EVFs or acknowledges that currently there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and view them as roughly equal. The group of people I categorized as mostly older are the group that apparently includes you as a minority member, those who still unreservedly prefer OVFs despite having compared them with EVFs.

With respect to the example you gave about impressing your peers, it is unclear what standard they were measuring the OVF against; obviously anyone would be impressed by the advantage of even a pentamirror viewfinder compared to an LCD screen (which is what I suspect they were comparing the OVF to in their minds, rather than to an EVF which the vast majority of people don't even know exists).

When I showed them, the NEX-7/a65/a77 didn't exist yet, so they obviously haven't seen the newest EVF. However, I doubt their conclusions would have changed. I've looked through the finder on all three of those cameras, and while the EVF is a slight improvement in terms of clarity, it still can't match an optical finder. That 2.4M dot EVF really is overhyped, IMO. I don't understand how people can begin to compare it to an optical finder's clarity and DR, let alone speed.

Again, we are talking about your personal opinion here, and I have already suggested that you are in the minority based on my empirical observations. For you to project your own views onto an entire population of camera users is outrageously speculative. It's like saying you doubt

I don't doubt that EVFs will continue to evolve, but it'll take a very, very long time (in some areas, infinite time) before they catch up to OVFs in those respects:

  • Lag time: waiting for a frame to expose, reading a low res frame off the sensor, processing it, and refreshing the EVF display will always take longer than just having light go directly to a focusing screen.

Technically that may be true but the lag can e reduced to something that is negligible and less than can be perceived by the human eye.

  • Resolution: OVFs are limited by the ground glass/lens. While it's conceivable that an EVF could come close, it'll need a rather massive jump in pixel density that we're not seeing.

We've already seen a massive jump in pixel density in just the last few years.

  • Live view between shots in a burst: To do this, the sensor has to be reset, and low res frames have to be read off for the EVF before the next shot. To do this quickly, the sensor has to be very fast. In many cameras, the max framerate is there not because of processing power, but because data can't be read off the sensor any faster. Sensor makers will have to abandon the megapixel race and pick up a frames-off-sensor race before this can improve. Oh, and extra processing power has to be used to deliver live view between frames in a burst, and that processing power can't be put to other uses like increasing the framerate.

Processing power and memory read/write speed have been increasing exponentially for some time now, I see no reason to think this won't continue into the foreseeable future

  • Battery life: show me an EVF design that can work without a power supply

Power consumption efficiency has also dramatically improved over the last few years, so what you'll see is not only EVFs that are more power-efficient relative to their performance, but batteries that hold a greater charger and lose less power through energy conversion, so the EVF's power consumption will soon be an afterthought.

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