What is the advantage of an optical viewfinder over an electronic viewfinder?

I'm just starting out. My point and shoot puts an awful lot of info on the viewfinder. Why would people prefer an optical (glass?) viewfinder? Is it because it's brighter? Or you can better see the target?

Thanks,

Jim

--
You're as happy as you think you are.

When you understand exposure, you don't need any info on the viewfinder.  And I simply prefer an optical view.

The most obvious advanatges of an OVF I see are...

1.No lag.

2.Ne Resolution limate.

3.No drain on the battery.

Thats of course in additional to a mirrored system featuring potentially superior autofocus performance.

4. No limit on dynamic range

5. No limit on color gamut

6. No image noise in low light

7. No increase in lag in low light

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

None of the above.

The advantage is that the camera almost disappears, and you are looking directly at the subject. You see directly what you want to capture, and it makes a difference, which is almost unexplainable.

It's a Zen thing. It either matters to you to see things that way, or it doesn't.

Leica had it the best. The next best thing is an OVF on a DSLR. Almost as good, but a small step down.

That sounds obscure, but I can'd do better.

Would you rather you car had an LED monitor instead of a windshield? You could get all kinds of information from the screen,...  before you crashed anyway!

- Jon

Most OVFs are so small and uncomfortable to squint through that their advantages seem almost nullified, but everything everyone has said here is true.

Because it works without batteries which, in turn, prolongs battery life.

It's about the only real advantage they have, though, the rest are either deeply subjective or wrong and misguided, like vinyl's alleged "warmth" over audio CDs.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek

With my mirrorless camera, I use the back LCD to frame AF, and compose. The camera is not at my eye-level so I can still see the scene with my eyes with nothing in between. This does not turn the camera into an object obstructing the communication with the subject and does not disconnect the photographer from the environment which happens when the camera is at the eye level covering his face. For taking pictures of humans this helps a lot since it works much better if the photographer and the subject see each other's faces and continue their communication all the way to the last moment of taking the picture.

While this wasn't a direct answer to the original poster, I thought it would add something to the discussion.

The Fuji Xpro 1 and X100 mirrorless both have the OVF and EVF plus the LCD screen to compose images. The OVF is good for moving targets where EVF lag may be an issue or for tracking targets still outside but moving into shooting range. THE OVF also has a HUD display showing shooting information. The EVF is great for low light, manual focus and general purpose shooting with WYSIWYG but with a slight lag. For others there is also the very good LCD screen. I use mainly the EVF about 70% of the time and OVF the rest. Never bother with the LCD.

An optical viewfinder feels like a natural extension of your vision.  An EVF does not.

--

StephenG

Any advantage (perceived or real) an OVF might have over an EVF today will diminish quite quickly to a point where they will no longer matter.

There is a huge amount of R&D being poured into making a better EVF, while the OVFs are what they are and they will remain that way..

The advantage of being able to eliminate the entire mirroir box and a cumbersome flipping mirror from a camera cannot be underestimated.

EVFs will prevail. It is only a matter of time. And not that long time either. And most people who are opposed to EVFs today will get used to them just fine.

--
Cheers,
Peter Jonas

Connection with reality.

--
Panagiotis

Optical:

1. Full color gamut, resolution, and dynamic range of the eye
2. Coarse manual focus is still faster with OVF.
   
3. You can upgrade to split prism focus screen
4. Doesn't use battery. Both extends battery life, and usable with camera turned off.
   
5. Instant. No lag. This was a severe problem with EVFs. Modern EVFs can be very fast, although they get worse in low light

Electronic

1. You see white balance, gamut limitations of the sensor, etc. before you shoot.
2. You see exposure before you shoot. Beginners can do full manual from day one.
   
3. Focus zoom makes for hyperaccurate manual focus (and better use of autofocus)
4. Camera sees what it is shooting -- smarter automatic modes.
   
5. No moving mirror. Less camera shake for sharper photos.
   
6. You can review photos accurately.
7. Potentially more on-screen information. Sadly, this is more theory than practice. Higher-end OVF cameras (D700, D3, etc.) start to add all the fancy electronic levels, etc. you see in EVF cameras. You just get them in somewhat lower-end EVF models. EVF models don't have fancy zones, etc. 
8. Much bigger image relative to entry-to-mid-level dSLRs.
   

Switching from OVF to EVF is initially a bit painful if you're used to OVF. It took a while before I got used to losing the zen/connection to reality of OVF. Now that I got used to EVF, I have a hard time going back.

Not all EVFs are the same. Many of the cheaper, small sensor cameras have very poor, laggy EVFs. At the same time, not all OVFs are the same. Many full frame cameras have very large, very usable OVFs. I hate using APS dSLRs, now that I've used EVF, but a 5D Mark II is decently usable.

Agree. It just seems the natural way to do it. Bit like looking through the telescopic sight of a rifle.

--
lee uk.
There are old pilots, & there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

its difficult to see the led in bright light due to glare

On the whole I agree with your very good summary but I would like to add some comments:

I shoot with both EVFs and OVFs and I have never yet come across a practical situation where "EVF" lag had any effect on my photography.  In fact, I find EVF lag to be undetectable.

For me the number 1 advantage of OVFs is the ability to use PDAF for continuous focusing.  With the possible exception of the Nikon 1 series, no mirrorless camera yet has usable AF-C for small, fast moving subjects.  This is the main reason that I still have a DSLR.

Another big, but decreasing OVF advantage - no noticeable viewfinder blackout at high fps rates.

(I don't seem to be able to insert this comment into the middle of a list).  Unfortunately there is a EVF equivalent of mirror slap - shutter shock syndrome or SSS caused by the double opening and closing of the shutter that is required with an EVF.  It seems to vary by body and lens with the Panasonic 14-42 X and 45-175 X lenses seeming to be the most affected.  Much discussed on the M4/3 forum.

Another major advantage of an EVF - you don't have to hold the camera at arms length for hand held video.

--
Chris R

Actually, no you don't.  You see the limitations of the in-camera JPEG processing of the raw data.  You don't see the limitations on the raw data themselves.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

The only 'advantage' nowadays is that you can say you've got a 'proper' camera with an optical viewfinder just like the pros have used since the time of their grandfathers.  Now this will sound cool to the aspiring photographer but quite baffling to a modern digital-savvy person wo thinks thinks the old way is the way of the Diplodocus.

Optical is easier and quicker but you depend on having a good camera and knowing that what you tell it to do is actually do-able.  Electronic, as implemented by Sony now at OLED level, is a different level of experience. You can see as much or as little data as you like, see the effects of settings changes if you like, see the histogram, and most importantly of all you don't have to look away from the viewfinder to check what you just took.

--
John.
Please visit me at:
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/sony_18135
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor

In that case you bought the wrong stereo.

--
Cheers Mike