Reading mode: Light Dark

EVF specs for D7

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stewart Corman
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
S

Stewart Corman

Guest
the ad from MPsuperstore shows the EVF to be:

"EVF (Electronic viewfinder) with ferroelectric 0.19 inch reflective liquid crystal microdisplay with equivalent resolution of 220,000 pixels"

http://www.mpsuperstore.com/digital/indexMy.htm?discr6069.htm

BUT the writeup by Phil shows only 71,000 pixels, which compares to Sony's F707 at 180,000. I have looked thru the Oly2100z EVF and it is terrible, while the Sony is extremely good with no pixelation and very sharp focusing for macro (my primary concern). I have not been abler to see a D7 in a store powered up. Does anyone have a direct comparison of the Sony EVF to the Minolta?

OT - BTW, for batteries ...check out Walmart (but may have been Target) who had a 4 hour charger with ( 8) 1600mah namebrand batteries for $20

I have previously order 4 packs w/o charger from the web for $6.53 + S+H

Stew Corman
 
Stewart Corman said:
the ad from MPsuperstore shows the EVF to be:
"EVF (Electronic viewfinder) with ferroelectric 0.19 inch
reflective liquid crystal microdisplay with equivalent resolution
of 220,000 pixels"

http://www.mpsuperstore.com/digital/indexMy.htm?discr6069.htm

BUT the writeup by Phil shows only 71,000 pixels, which compares to
Sony's F707 at 180,000. I have looked thru the Oly2100z EVF and it
is terrible, while the Sony is extremely good with no pixelation
and very sharp focusing for macro (my primary concern). I have not
been abler to see a D7 in a store powered up. Does anyone have a
direct comparison of the Sony EVF to the Minolta?
Click to expand...
The Minolta EVF is based on a different LCD technology which
gives better colour. So the 'equivalent' claims are based on trying
to convince consumers that 3 normal pixels are the equivalent
of Minolta's supposedly wonderful 1 pixel.

EVFs seem to be very subjective. I've seen enough conflicting
posts from eople who like/dislike various cameras to come to
the conclusion hat you can't depend on somebody else to make
the decision or you.

So rather than looking at the specs you really have to check out
the different manufacturers' units in store for yourself.

The D7 EVF has quite a wide range adjustment at the side
and you would need to adjust this before making any conclusions.
-----------------Andrew.
 
Hi Stewart,

Most LCD/EVF displays have three coloured dots (RGB) per image pixel. Conventionally (or controversially) these three colour points are counted as individual pixels, probably just to make the pixel count sound better than it actually is.

The D7 EVF is unusual (the back LCD is conventional) because each pixel can display a full colour range. This is acheived by rapidly switching the monochrome LCD in syncronisation with a three colour light source.

For this reason the D7's EVF has the same spatial resolution as an equivalent conventional LCD that has three times the pixels.

Here is a link to Display Tech's page giving some insight into the device Minolta have used in the D5/D7...

http://www.displaytech.com/products/personalview.html

From my experience with the D7, I can say that the EVF is bright and clear and is slightly pixelated. This does have a strange advantage though; often it can work like a 35mm micro-prism, but in reverse. When out of focus, edges are diffusely spread accross several pixels, when in focus the viewfinder pixels shimmer aliasing with edges/detail or revealing jaggies. Observing this, is often just as accurate a means of manual focusing as using the x4 viewfinder magnification.

Initially it can be a bit fiddley to adjust the viewfinder diopter adjustment. The EVF device is very small (3.8x2.8mm) and is magnified quite a lot, consequently it is initialy tricky to get sharp focus at both the centre and the corners of the display. Also the eye/brain is slightly confused by wanting to relax focus 'through the viewfinder' on the view, yet knows that the superimposed data is on top 'in the camera', but you adapt with use.

Hope this helps a bit.

Cheers.

Mark H.
 
Thanks for the responses ...I read thru Phils report and I can see how 71,000 of these pixels may be equivalent to 3x or 213,000 pixels which should be quite decent resolution ... I admit that I wasn't planning on ordering the camera before going into a store like BestBuy and trying it out. The focus in center, blur outside is almost irrelevant, since most would lock in on a target at center , then take the shot .. at tele macro, the DOF is quite short and I want to see what I am getting and the 4x mag sounds great.

Since no body has bitched about poor pixelation when viewing, I'd presume it is a non-problem.

Most do not realize the dramatic difference between these digital cameras and 35mm SLRs. When you use macro on an SLR, you are focusing wide open with virtually no DOF , the lens gets stopped down and it is really dark and hard to view if you "preview" ... the digital camera however, is always showing WYSIWYG, but since the sensor is 1/4 the size coverage, the DOF is really quite small by a factor of more than 4x, and the brightness is how the final image will be viewed. So, without f22, you can't really get the big DOF that any 35mm will give.

Stew Corman
 
Stewart Corman said:
Most do not realize the dramatic difference between these digital
cameras and 35mm SLRs. When you use macro on an SLR, you are
focusing wide open with virtually no DOF , the lens gets stopped
down and it is really dark and hard to view if you "preview" ...
the digital camera however, is always showing WYSIWYG, but since
the sensor is 1/4 the size coverage, the DOF is really quite small
by a factor of more than 4x, and the brightness is how the final
image will be viewed. So, without f22, you can't really get the big
DOF that any 35mm will give.

Stew Corman
Click to expand...
This is not correct and I hit post instead of preview ...

the shorter focal length of the actual digital lens is 1/4 that of the equivalent 35mm lens, and by physics, for any focal length and f stop, for the same size image, you get the same DOF ...the thing you can't do with digital is shoot wide open and get selective focus , because the DOF is so much greater.

Sorry for the confusion

Stew Corman
 
Stewart Corman said:
and the 4x mag sounds great.
Click to expand...
According to the manual you either have electronic magnification or digital zoom when you press the magnification button in preview. You make the either / or choice from custom 1 section of the record mode menu. The manual further states that the magnified display can only be used to check manual focus and can not be used to set exposure. Pressing the shutter part way cancels the magnified image. The manual is not clear as to whether or not both images are magnified. I mention this because the manual states that when Digital Zoom is selected, only the LCD display zooms the image to fit the frame. The EVF image remains the same size and the zoomed area of the image is cropped with a shaded border. I'd recommend that anyone considering this or any other camera download the manual and read it first - if possible
Member said:
Since no body has bitched about poor pixelation when viewing, I'd
presume it is a non-problem.
Click to expand...
I'd take a look at it before you buy. It has a pixelated appearance that may bother some and is not as "smooth" looking to my eye as the EVF in the 707. I also found it harder to find a pleasing setting on the diopter wheel as compared with the 707 - and, with my eyeglasses, I had trouble seeing the corners - as compared with the 707. Using the EVF over the rear panel LCD (shutting the LCD off) is one way some people extend the battery life of the D7. You may be using the EVF more then you think - for this reason. I'm not recommending the 707 over the D7 either - it's just something you should be aware of.

Pete
 
Hi again Stewart,

I'm not entirely certain but, from the many occasions I've read about it, I think you may be wrong about the depth of field being 'the same'.

Everything I've ever read suggests that you get greater effective depth of field with the typical short focal length digital camera lenses. Even the experts Minolta state this in the manual, to reassure us that we won't miss having f11, f16 etc.

Here's Phils Glossary page link...

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_field_01.htm

...although like most stuff I've read on the matter, it does not clearly explain things with any technical detail.

I must try to find my old physics/optics notes sometime, so I can resolve this question in my own mind, once and for all.

Incidentally, there is no DOF preview effect with the D7, or most other digicams that I know of. The aperture sometimes stops down while viewing, but only to limit very high light levels falling on the CCD. The viewfinder image brightness is mostly controlled electronically.

Mark H.
Stewart Corman said:
the shorter focal length of the actual digital lens is 1/4 that of
the equivalent 35mm lens, and by physics, for any focal length and
f stop, for the same size image, you get the same DOF ...the thing
you can't do with digital is shoot wide open and get selective
focus , because the DOF is so much greater.

Sorry for the confusion

Stew Corman
Click to expand...
 
I have compared them, Sony 707 and D7, in store only, but the result is neat: the Sony EVF is far better. I could use it without problem for manual focusing in the dim light of the store. I could not with the D7 (nor the D7 was able to lock its autofocus in this light, it was the only camera that failed in my short but I think fair tests on all focus modes, auto and manual).

The D7 EVF is however a bit more detailed and clear than the one of my own Fuji 6900 EVF, but I have seen that when following moving subjects, the image in D7 EVF often freeze and is not good to follow such moving subjects. The Fuji 6900 does not have this problem.

For these reasons I would rate the Sony 707 EVF as being the best and most usable, and those of the D7 and 6900 second ex-aequo and a bit disappointing, whiole still usable with some practice in many circumstances.

Too bad the 707 does not produce good colors nor photographical looking pictures (too much in-camera processing), because otherwise it's the best camera of the 3 (D7, 707, 6900) in term of viewfinder and autofocus. The D7 has in addition of an average viewfinde,r a significant level of noise and does not seem to produce clean images at full 1:1 size. For now the best of the 3 in term of quality of the produced images is the 6900, I keep it. Too bad it does not have the EVF and autofocus of the 707!

Jean-Paul
Stewart Corman said:
the ad from MPsuperstore shows the EVF to be:
"EVF (Electronic viewfinder) with ferroelectric 0.19 inch
reflective liquid crystal microdisplay with equivalent resolution
of 220,000 pixels"

http://www.mpsuperstore.com/digital/indexMy.htm?discr6069.htm

BUT the writeup by Phil shows only 71,000 pixels, which compares to
Sony's F707 at 180,000. I have looked thru the Oly2100z EVF and it
is terrible, while the Sony is extremely good with no pixelation
and very sharp focusing for macro (my primary concern). I have not
been abler to see a D7 in a store powered up. Does anyone have a
direct comparison of the Sony EVF to the Minolta?

OT - BTW, for batteries ...check out Walmart (but may have been
Target) who had a 4 hour charger with ( 8) 1600mah namebrand
batteries for $20

I have previously order 4 packs w/o charger from the web for $6.53
+ S+H

Stew Corman
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Pete,
a few points
Pete said:
According to the manual you either have electronic magnification or
digital zoom when you press the magnification button in preview.
Click to expand...
Forget digital zoom ..it is a joke of the industry, a fraud ...turn it off permanently,

so electronic mag of 4x is super for macro work in manual mode ...just try auto focus in macro, take a dozen shots, and you'll see that what you think you are getting, you won't 90% of the time!
Pete said:
Pete said:
Since no body has bitched about poor pixelation when viewing, I'd
presume it is a non-problem.
Click to expand...
I'd take a look at it before you buy.
Click to expand...
I certainly will after being so dissapointed with looking thru the Oly2100Z.
Pete said:
You may be using the EVF more then you think - for this reason. I'm not
recommending the 707 over the D7 either - it's just something you
should be aware of.
Click to expand...
Actually, I can't stand peering over my glasses at the LCD of the F505V and can't see any details there anyway when shooting ..it is my expectation that I use the EVF 99% of the time just like an SLR

Stew
 
Mark H said:
Hi Stewart,
Click to expand...
...
Mark H said:
From my experience with the D7, I can say that the EVF is bright
and clear and is slightly pixelated. This does have a strange
advantage though; often it can work like a 35mm micro-prism, but in
reverse. When out of focus, edges are diffusely spread accross
several pixels, when in focus the viewfinder pixels shimmer
aliasing with edges/detail or revealing jaggies. Observing this, is
often just as accurate a means of manual focusing as using the x4
viewfinder magnification.
Click to expand...
Your stuff is well-written, closes the book on a lot of questions, provides links for furthering your own research, and a great focusing tip as well.
 
Thanks Jean-Paul,
SFJP said:
I have compared them, Sony 707 and D7, in store only, but the
result is neat: the Sony EVF is far better.
Click to expand...
I was impressed with the clarity of the Sony EFV and you are telling me that the D7 is something less.
SFJP said:
I could use it without problem for manual focusing in the dim light of the store. I could
not with the D7 (nor the D7 was able to lock its autofocus in this
light, it was the only camera that failed in my short but I think
fair tests on all focus modes, auto and manual).
Click to expand...
I don't usually shoot macro in dim lite areas, but you brought up very good things to look for ...it is possible that the f2.0 lens on the Sony is a full stop bbrighter than the Minolta's f2.8 and therefore gave those results you noted. I value the wide angle 28mm equiv more than the extra f stop. Auto focus is a non issue for me ... snapshoots are not photography.
SFJP said:
The D7 EVF is however a bit more detailed and clear than the one of
my own Fuji 6900 EVF, but I have seen that when following moving
subjects, the image in D7 EVF often freeze and is not good to
follow such moving subjects. The Fuji 6900 does not have this
problem.
Click to expand...
Very easy to check out as you have defined.
SFJP said:
Too bad the 707 does not produce good colors nor photographical
looking pictures (too much in-camera processing),
Click to expand...
Say What?? My Sony F505V takes beautiful shots, unless the object is moving or macro ..great color and sharpness ...you wouldn't believe the 12x18 scenic print I made from 1856x1395 on an Epson 1200 inkjet .. I can't wait to see a 5MP image! And direct from camera to TV, the slide show is super color and contrast .. is it possible that you are viewing on a computer monitor that hasn't been adjusted properly?
SFJP said:
it's the best camera of the 3 (D7, 707, 6900) in term of viewfinder
and
Click to expand...
Wait a minute ...did Sony totally redo their autofocus, becasue the F505V doesn't work? Go search my name for the moaning about F505v.
SFJP said:
Jean-Paul
Click to expand...
Stew

unretouched shot from 505V
http://www.geocities.com/scorman/Dsc00304.jpg
 
Another thing to consider that may not be immediately apparent is the way in which the D7 viewfinder shows you an accurate preview of your exposure. You can actually adjust your exposure using just the appearance in the viewfinder; this is really a great feature. This works in non-flash modes and non-low light B&W mode. (in those other modes it just tries to show you as much as possible).

I don't know to what extent the 707 does this or not. There were some complaints about the 707 LCD image being too bright compared to the actual exposure, but it sounds like this might be some problem with just certian cameras. Anway, it would be easy enough to check this out in the store.

Bryan
 
Thanks Russell,

Occasionally people don't respond, and I wonder whether anyone's reading at all, or should I bother.

It's allways good to get some (positive) feedback.

:^)

Mark H.
 
Mark H said:
Stewart Corman said:
the shorter focal length of the actual digital lens is 1/4 that of
the equivalent 35mm lens, and by physics, for any focal length and
f stop, for the same size image, you get the same DOF ...the thing
you can't do with digital is shoot wide open and get selective
focus , because the DOF is so much greater.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So this means that if I want a shallow field of facus as in portraits or flower closeups I should use my SLR? This is very disappointing and I couldn't figure out why everything was in focus when I was shooting at the maximum aperture.
Carol
 
Carol O'Keefe said:
So this means that if I want a shallow field of facus as in
portraits or flower closeups I should use my SLR? This is very
disappointing and I couldn't figure out why everything was in focus
when I was shooting at the maximum aperture.
Carol
Click to expand...
Not at all truye, Carol. I take portraits and love the shallow depth of field effect. It is harder to achieve this with the D7 than with a 35mm film camera, but not impossible. Here is an example:



And here is another.



The 200mm equivalent zoom really helps. This camera is capable of much more pleasing portraits than my old Nikon CP990. It just takes some planning...

Steven
 
oops! the second picture is here now!
Member said:
Carol O'Keefe said:
So this means that if I want a shallow field of facus as in
portraits or flower closeups I should use my SLR? This is very
disappointing and I couldn't figure out why everything was in focus
when I was shooting at the maximum aperture.
Carol
Click to expand...
Not at all truye, Carol. I take portraits and love the shallow
depth of field effect. It is harder to achieve this with the D7
than with a 35mm film camera, but not impossible. Here is an
example:



And here is another.
Click to expand...

Member said:
The 200mm equivalent zoom really helps. This camera is capable of
much more pleasing portraits than my old Nikon CP990. It just takes
some planning...

Steven
Click to expand...
 
Mark H:

I thought your discussion of the EVF was quite helpful. I especially found the idea of using the pixellation as an indication of focus very interesting and I'm going to try it out.

Occasionally I have used the manual focus and find the 4x magnification helpful. One has to go into the program on the camera and change the standard 2x digital zoom to this feature. Since I always figured I would just take the whole shot and crop after the fact, this doesn't seem a limitation to me.
Tim B
Mark H said:
Hi Stewart,

Most LCD/EVF displays have three coloured dots (RGB) per image
pixel. Conventionally (or controversially) these three colour
points are counted as individual pixels, probably just to make the
pixel count sound better than it actually is.

The D7 EVF is unusual (the back LCD is conventional) because each
pixel can display a full colour range. This is acheived by rapidly
switching the monochrome LCD in syncronisation with a three colour
light source.

For this reason the D7's EVF has the same spatial resolution as an
equivalent conventional LCD that has three times the pixels.

Here is a link to Display Tech's page giving some insight into the
device Minolta have used in the D5/D7...

http://www.displaytech.com/products/personalview.html

From my experience with the D7, I can say that the EVF is bright
and clear and is slightly pixelated. This does have a strange
advantage though; often it can work like a 35mm micro-prism, but in
reverse. When out of focus, edges are diffusely spread accross
several pixels, when in focus the viewfinder pixels shimmer
aliasing with edges/detail or revealing jaggies. Observing this, is
often just as accurate a means of manual focusing as using the x4
viewfinder magnification.

Initially it can be a bit fiddley to adjust the viewfinder diopter
adjustment. The EVF device is very small (3.8x2.8mm) and is
magnified quite a lot, consequently it is initialy tricky to get
sharp focus at both the centre and the corners of the display. Also
the eye/brain is slightly confused by wanting to relax focus
'through the viewfinder' on the view, yet knows that the
superimposed data is on top 'in the camera', but you adapt with use.

Hope this helps a bit.

Cheers.

Mark H.
Click to expand...
 
Stewart Corman said:
the ad from MPsuperstore shows the EVF to be:
"EVF (Electronic viewfinder) with ferroelectric 0.19 inch
reflective liquid crystal microdisplay with equivalent resolution
of 220,000 pixels"

http://www.mpsuperstore.com/digital/indexMy.htm?discr6069.htm

BUT the writeup by Phil shows only 71,000 pixels, which compares to
Sony's F707 at 180,000. I have looked thru the Oly2100z EVF and it
is terrible, while the Sony is extremely good with no pixelation
and very sharp focusing for macro (my primary concern). I have not
been abler to see a D7 in a store powered up. Does anyone have a
direct comparison of the Sony EVF to the Minolta?

OT - BTW, for batteries ...check out Walmart (but may have been
Target) who had a 4 hour charger with ( 8) 1600mah namebrand
batteries for $20

I have previously order 4 packs w/o charger from the web for $6.53
+ S+H

Stew Corman
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top