Kirk Tuck: Just used the a99 for a three day conference here in Austin. The EVF was perfect for "pre-chimping" in mixed lighting for stage shots, etc. The 3200 and 6400 were very clean and the body and controls felt just right in my medium sized hands. I think it's a remarkably good camera for any professional who does not shoot fast moving sports stuff. Don't underestimate the appeal to working professionals of the EVF. It's a great addition for me. And the front dial on the camera, set to exposure compensation, means you never have to take your finger off the shutter to mess with EC when actively shooting speeches, etc.
Bonus, the EVF is much better than OVF under very low light.
Thing I thought I would never used that came in handy? The Smart Teleconverter.
I think DP Review's rating is just right. You buy this camera for the sensor and the EVF. If you are dropping $3000 you know why your are buying it and those features outweigh all the anti-fanboy rhetoric.
Barry Fitzgerald is talking absolute nonsense. It is gibberish.
He says " be in no doubt that most FF shooters will prefer an OVF that is beyond debate "... Nonsense.
The FIRST pro level DSLR FF camera ever offered to the market is the Sony A99. It was launched just weeks ago. There is therefore ZERO data to make that assertion.
Anecdotaly, we can see that there ARE pros converting to the A99 - because we have some here on DPR. But we don't know how many. It is too soon.
Anecdotaly, we also know that an EVF certainly does not bother the legions of videographers who spend a fortune bolting a huge EVF to their DSLR rig. We also know that pro video cams have an EVF.
So we simply cannot extrapolate any substantial information to support Barry Fitzgeralds thesis. There are insufficient data points.
Just ignore him. He has nothing to say of any interest.
Have a :)
Robert Eckerlin: About OVF vs EVF: When photographing, I want to enjoy what I see in the ViewFinder. For me, this is an essential part of enjoying to make photographies.
Question to the fans of EVFs: 1) do you really enjoy what you see with a good EVF? As much as what you would see with a good OVF? 2) Or is that aspect (= enjoying what you see inh the VF) not important for you?
My only experience with an EVF was with a relatively expensive Leica EVF for my Panasonic DMC-LX5. I did not like it at all and returned it. Of course the A99 is in another category than my LX5. Before being able to have an opinion about the EVF of the A99, I will need to grab a A99. But I am nevertheless curious about the answers of the fans of the A99 EVF.
I like looking at the scene with my eyes.
When I choose to take a picture, I want the camera to let me know how IT sees the scene. The EVF let's you have a much better idea of how the image looks BEFORE you take the picture, rather than chimping AFTER the moment has passed...
You need to time to adjust your style, but you end up using your eyes more. You don't need to spend so much time peering through the camera because you learn to know instinctively how the camera "sees" the image from the EVF. You get more keepers in my experience. It does take some getting used to though...
Hi Kirk - without embarrassing you, I must say it is great to have a real life pro here , whose portraiture in particular I admire considerably. Real pros like you are outnumbered massively by armchair gear heads. I dare say you shoot more frames in a week than Barry Fitzgerald does in a year... It is also worth noting that I know you are not "branded " to any one camera maker. You used to shoot Canon FF did'nt you?Anyway, welcome. Sorry in advance for the resident gear heads and branded fanboys.