A 'DSLR' with EVF, will it ever happen?

Will Canon ever give us a 'DSLR' with an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)? Something like the Sony R1, but with interchangeable lenses. Of course it wouldn't tecnically be a 'Single Lens Reflex' camera anymore, but isn't that an outdated design for a modern digital camera anyway? Isn't SLRs with mirror vibrations and odd lens design just a relic from the film days?

Imagine a big sensor (1,6x or FF) camera with a big and bright electronic viewfinder, with the same resolution as the LCD on Nikon D300 and (of course) 100% coverage of the frame. In my opinion such a camera would be much superior to the DSLRs we use today. It would make it much easier to get the correct framing, focus and exposure.

With my old Pro1 I never used the cameras metering. It wasn't necessary. In manual mode its EVF worked like the Live View on 40D with Exposure Simulation enabled. What you see is what you get. In manual mode I simply changed the exposure until I could SEE that it was correct, and that's far superior to any metering system. (And it would be even better with a live view histogram available, which the Pro1 hadn't.)

And focusing would be better too. Contrast Detect AF is potentially more accurate than the Phase Detect AF used in DSLRs today, and if that isn't good enough, then you just magnify the image and use manual focus. 40D with 10x magnification in Live View has proved how accurate that can be.

I imagine that such a camera could use the current EF and EF-s lenses, but to take fully advantage of the new design (without mirror) it could be necessary to introduce a new line of lenses, which could be both sharper and more compact, especially when it comes to wide angle lenses. The only problem that has to be solved is AF speed, for those that need it (I don't), but P&S cameras with pretty fast AF already exist, so I'm sure that can be accomplished too.

Would you buy such a camera? I sure would, without hesitation

It could happen, but I had a camera with a pretty good EVF, and frankly I much prefer the realtime, tangible quality of the 'real' optical viewfinder. I personally think if they were to implement such a thing, it would have to be in addition to a regular viewfinder. Yes, that would negate some of the optical design benefits. They could do something like a semisilvered pellicle mirror+projection EVF through the prism.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gariepyjeanmichel/show/

It would mean limited resolution in the viewfinder, additional cost, and a whole new range of problems. More cost, more complication, and questionable image quality. I much prefer seeing what the camera is seeing without electonics in between. KISS.

To me, the current inclusion of live-view features on today's DSLRs is just a stepping stone in that direction.

The EVF will need to be very well done to be an improvement over an optical viewfinder. But if done well, it could easily provide advantages that would make it better than today's optical viewfinders.

We're all conditioned from years of use of OVFs, so it'll need to be really good to be accepted, but it could be done!

Think of how a very high resolution EVF could best an optical finder:

1. 100% coverage achieved with no requirement for precision alignment in manufacture. Right now, we don't get 100% coverage because it's a pain to get things aligned to the degree of precision necessary to allow that. So either a 100% finder is "off" or it's very expensive. With an EVF, 100% coverage comes with no extra expense and is, by definition, perfect.

2. Smaller and lighter weight than a big hunk of glass formed into a pentaprism. Imagine what other goodies could be packed into a camera if you didn't need to have that wasted space and weight from the pentaprism.

3. Faster. Just like a pellix system only better. Ultra fast bursts speeds easily achievable with no need for a mirror flapping around and perhaps not even any mechanical shutter.

4. Cheaper. Again, none of the mechanical mumbo-jumbo associated with moving mirrors and mechanical shutters (assuming the shutter can be eliminated).

5. Lots of possibilities for autofocus.

6. Perfect alignment for manual focus. Right now, the optical path length from the lens to the sensor must be identical to that from the lens to the focusing screen for manual focus to be accurate. With an EVF, it cannot be anything but perfect. Again, no need for precision in the manufacturing. That cuts costs and yet we've still got perfection.

But most importantly, an improved viewfinder.

Don't like a dim viewfinder? Turn up the brightness. How about auto brightness so that it adjusts to the ambient lighting. Great for us blind glasses wearers!

Don't like the lack of focusing aids? How about computer generated "microprisms" or "split images". Or selected areas of 10X magnification with the surrounding area maintained "normal" to allow you to precisely focus in one small area yet maintain framing with the overall view remaining the same. Think "picture in picture" here.

Don't like the small appearance of today's OVFs? Not a problem anymore. How large would you like it to appear? There's no limit because brightness is not sacrificed for the sake of apparent size. And this is true even with a 1.6X sensor. How many times do we hear about how great the FF bodies are because of their big, bright viewfinders? With an EVF, FF has no advantage.

I think a good EVF could be better than an OVF. But, again, it'll need to be really well done to achieve that. It's probably coming. But it better be really good, or people won't like it. It must be very high resolution (as good or better than what we can see now on a typical focusing screen) and it must offer very fast update rates (Canon already does well with this on the 40D's live-view).

I'll be interested to see what comes in the future. It could solve some problems and make things better than they've ever been. We'll see, I guess.

--
Jim H.

As much as i agree, I wouldnt be suprised if such a thing exists in the next couple generations from someone else, or sony tries again with another R1 type camera.

Steen Bay said:

Will Canon ever give us a 'DSLR' with an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)?
Something like the Sony R1, but with interchangeable lenses.

Click to expand...

Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens - EVIL

Steen Bay said:

Imagine a big sensor (1,6x or FF) camera with a big and bright
electronic viewfinder, with the same resolution as the LCD on Nikon
D300...

Click to expand...

That low? Why choose a lousy low-res EVF over a high-res optical?

Steen Bay said:

...and (of course) 100% coverage of the frame. In my opinion such a
camera would be much superior to the DSLRs we use today. It would
make it much easier to get the correct framing, focus and exposure.

Click to expand...

Harder - it would lag like crazy compared to the optical in the SLRs.

Steen Bay said:

And focusing would be better too. Contrast Detect AF is potentially
more accurate than the Phase Detect AF used in DSLRs today,

Click to expand...

And slower, and can't predict. Contrast detect AF is my main gripe with compacts.

Steen Bay said:

I imagine that such a camera could use the current EF and EF-s
lenses, but to take fully advantage of the new design (without
mirror) it could be necessary to introduce a new line of lenses,

Click to expand...

Which would defeat any purpose.

Steen Bay said:

which could be both sharper and more compact, especially when it
comes to wide angle lenses. The only problem that has to be solved is
AF speed, for those that need it (I don't), but P&S cameras with
pretty fast AF already exist, so I'm sure that can be accomplished
too.

Click to expand...

The fastest compact is so slow as to be laughable for any moving subjects. The only thing that saves them is that they lack DOF control and so they don't need to get focused accurately.

Steen Bay said:

Would you buy such a camera? I sure would, without hesitation

Click to expand...

Not in a zillion years. PD AF and optical viewfinders are two of the four things that make SLRs great. The others are larger sensors and interchangeable lenses. 2 of 4 might as well be 0 of 4 when cheap SLRs are available.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

No, I would not buy an EVF camera, unless it was you had the option between EVF and OVF. Like hybrid cars. I would never depend just on electric, ethanol, or gas.

Steen Bay said:

Would you buy such a camera? I sure would, without hesitation

Click to expand...

Only if the resolution and real-time view is indiscernable from an optical VF; i.e. there can't be any lag.

Mark

ljfinger said:

Lee Jay said:

Would you buy such a camera? I sure would, without hesitation

Click to expand...

Not in a zillion years. PD AF and optical viewfinders are two of the
four things that make SLRs great. The others are larger sensors and
interchangeable lenses. 2 of 4 might as well be 0 of 4 when cheap
SLRs are available.

Click to expand...

But won't you at least admit that Live View with 10x magnification would have made it much easier to get the focus right in your moon shots?

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

Steen Bay said:

Would you buy such a camera? I sure would, without hesitation

Click to expand...

Not in a zillion years. PD AF and optical viewfinders are two of the
four things that make SLRs great. The others are larger sensors and
interchangeable lenses. 2 of 4 might as well be 0 of 4 when cheap
SLRs are available.

Click to expand...

But won't you at least admit that Live View with 10x magnification
would have made it much easier to get the focus right in your moon
shots?

Click to expand...

Well, yes, but I have a Magnifier S for that.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Years ago, I had a Minolta Dimage 7Hi. A very capable camera for its time, and plenty of nice features and quality.

I hated its EVF so much that I traded it in after about 5 weeks' use for a 10D, and have been very happy with the OVF ever since.

Personally, I'd much rather see LiveView improved to at least match P&S standards (surely, it can't be that hard, Canon!). I'd also be grateful if there was an articulated LCD, as this is probably the only other thing I miss having on my 40D today. Great for low angle shooting and interesting perspectives.

--
Cheers,

Matthew

'True. You can shoot a Canon with a Nikon ... but it's much more fun shooting a Nikon with a Cannon.'

As I point out in my post above, for manual focus to be accurate, the optical path distance from the lens to the sensor must be precisely the same as from the lens to the focusing screen.

So ultimately, we're at the mercy of the shims used (in the 20D and 30D, at least) to get the focusing screen to lie in the correct plane. And those shims only come in fairly coarse steps. So manual focus will always be a compromise in accuracy. Magnifying our view of the focusing screen does not achieve an increase in the accuracy of the focus. It just helps us to see that (potentially faulty) focus more clearly.

With live view, the image you see magnified at 10X on the screen is taken directly from the sensor. Thus, there can be no error. What you see is what you'll get. The same cannot be said for any focusing screen system because the distances cannot be assured to be as perfect as we'd hope for.

I'm not saying that it'll be grossly off. But I am saying that as we begin to magnify our view of the focusing screen, we're now certainly stretching things beyond what the camera was really designed to provide in terms of manual focus accuracy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a great proponent of manual focus. But I do believe that a really well-implemented EVF could be far more accurate for manual focus than what we can expect to get with current mass-produced optical viewfinders.

The EVF's display would need to be extremely good with very high resolution to rival what we're all used to getting with our optical viewfinders. But being able to magnify a portion of the frame would help with that. And I think it'll be possible to have an EVF that whips up on our beloved OVFs at some point.

--
Jim H.

It's coming.

High end digital cinematography cameras already have them.

It's just a matter of time for the technology to get small, cheap and energy efficient enough to be incorporated into stills cameras.

--

Graphic Design + Web Design + Photography

http://www.molecule.com.au

JimH said:

As I point out in my post above, for manual focus to be accurate, the
optical path distance from the lens to the sensor must be precisely
the same as from the lens to the focusing screen.

So ultimately, we're at the mercy of the shims used (in the 20D and
30D, at least) to get the focusing screen to lie in the correct
plane. And those shims only come in fairly coarse steps. So manual
focus will always be a compromise in accuracy. Magnifying our view
of the focusing screen does not achieve an increase in the accuracy
of the focus. It just helps us to see that (potentially faulty)
focus more clearly.

With live view, the image you see magnified at 10X on the screen is
taken directly from the sensor. Thus, there can be no error. What
you see is what you'll get. The same cannot be said for any focusing
screen system because the distances cannot be assured to be as
perfect as we'd hope for.

Click to expand...

True, but since I've been shooting with it through the scope, I've tested this. When it's dead-on with the magnifier, it's dead-on at the sensor. When I'm slightly one way or the other through the magnifier, the resulting image is very slightly softer. Well done to Canon.

JimH said:

I'm not saying that it'll be grossly off. But I am saying that as we
begin to magnify our view of the focusing screen, we're now certainly
stretching things beyond what the camera was really designed to
provide in terms of manual focus accuracy.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a great proponent of manual focus. But I do
believe that a really well-implemented EVF could be far more accurate
for manual focus than what we can expect to get with current
mass-produced optical viewfinders.

The EVF's display would need to be extremely good with very high
resolution to rival what we're all used to getting with our optical
viewfinders. But being able to magnify a portion of the frame would
help with that. And I think it'll be possible to have an EVF that
whips up on our beloved OVFs at some point.

Click to expand...

The OVF has the advantage of using our eyes with no signal processing in between. It has the disadvantage of losing a stop or two of light to the screen.

I have an S3IS, and I virtually always use the EVF as I pretty much hate framing with the LCD screen (one reason I don't like my G7). When I'm using it, it doesn't seem too bad. Focus performance is bad, especially at the long end, but the EVF isn't so bad. Then I pick up the 5D and am brought back to reality. It's better by several orders of magnitude - fast, bright, detailed, big. The EVF in the S3 is like looking through a toilet paper tube with Vasoline-smeared cellophane on the end by comparison, not to mention some strange sci-fi-like time delay between what I do and what it shows.

Resolution needs to be around 1800x1200x3, shutter-speed needs to be around 1/500th, and latency needs to be less than one frame period. That's going to be near-impossible in low light, and tough in good light because of the data rate (over 1,000 MegaPixels/Second). If it could be done, it would likely suck batter power at a shocking rate, heat up the camera and sensor, and burn your fingers off. Either that or be just like my S3 - slow and low-res.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Remember the Contax G series rangefinders ?

On their ads they mention that the lack of mirror box enables them to build a higher performance optics. Such feat is possible because the back lens can be made closer to the film plane, where in the regular SLR the mirror box will prevent such lens design.

After seeing how good Contax G images are, I have no reason to disbelieve Contax promotional ads.

I have also seen the amazing images from Leica rangefinder. I can see the also have the advantages similar to Contax G series lens designs.

I believe the EVF and the removal of mirror box will combine the advantages of SLR and rangefinder.

Maybe you were not aware, but sony has already release a DSLR with EVF, the A300/A350 with EVF DSLR. Personally, I wouldn't buy one, but the sony option is there for you if you really want an EVF DSLR.

I don't think canon would every go such a route, so don't hold your breath waiting for an EVF from canon.

JimH said:

I think a good EVF could be better than an OVF. But, again, it'll
need to be really well done to achieve that. It's probably coming.
But it better be really good, or people won't like it. It must be
very high resolution (as good or better than what we can see now on a
typical focusing screen) and it must offer very fast update rates
(Canon already does well with this on the 40D's live-view).

Click to expand...

How high do you believe the resolution would have to be in an EVF to match an OVF? Lee Jay says 1800 x 1200 x 3 (post below) meaning 6,5 Mpixels, and that's hardly realistic anytime soon, but is that really necessary?

Do you know how many 'mikro-lenses' there are on the focusing screens used today? Wouldn't that number x3 (to get full color) be enough?

Steen Bay said:

How high do you believe the resolution would have to be in an EVF to
match an OVF? Lee Jay says 1800 x 1200 x 3 (post below) meaning 6,5
Mpixels, and that's hardly realistic anytime soon, but is that really
necessary?

Do you know how many 'mikro-lenses' there are on the focusing screens
used today? Wouldn't that number x3 (to get full color) be enough?

Click to expand...

so, it seems we are about to launch an expedition into a land of compromises
"as necessary evil - you know, the economy of this thingy, etc."?

already, the 1800x1200 is a rather poor compromise, but if (faced with
technological and economic realities) we start to argue that the modest
number of microlenses, as implemented into Ef-A, or Ef-S focusing screens
(here is a very rough estimate, as they are placed on a hexagonal grid,
with their centers on a equilateral triangles, approx 23 microns apart:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/qmusaget/2241275821/ , however, Jim has
much better pictures taken with a high resolution microscope).

And, as a rough area of Ef-S focusing screen for 40d is about 24.5x16mm,
it would mean that only about 690x612 such microlense-pixels would be
placed within such a rectangle (depending how they will be oriented, of
course, but my estimate is based on a shot from the link above).

So, obviously something much better, than a miclorelse-sized, would be in
order to even start to think about it;

what is the best pitch available in today's top of the line LCD displays? are
the plasma ones better pitched?

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/

007peter said:

Maybe you were not aware, but sony has already release a DSLR with
EVF, the A300/A350 with EVF DSLR. Personally, I wouldn't buy one,
but the sony option is there for you if you really want an EVF DSLR.
I don't think canon would every go such a route, so don't hold your
breath waiting for an EVF from canon.

Click to expand...

--They have not, it still has a standard optical viewfinder. It lets you view with the LCD which is not the same thing as a EVIL.
Brian Schneider

Steen Bay said:

JimH said:

I think a good EVF could be better than an OVF. But, again, it'll
need to be really well done to achieve that. It's probably coming.
But it better be really good, or people won't like it. It must be
very high resolution (as good or better than what we can see now on a
typical focusing screen) and it must offer very fast update rates
(Canon already does well with this on the 40D's live-view).

Click to expand...

How high do you believe the resolution would have to be in an EVF to
match an OVF? Lee Jay says 1800 x 1200 x 3 (post below) meaning 6,5
Mpixels, and that's hardly realistic anytime soon, but is that really
necessary?

Do you know how many 'mikro-lenses' there are on the focusing screens
used today? Wouldn't that number x3 (to get full color) be enough?

Click to expand...

That 1800x1200 was based on human visual acuity and apparent field-of-view, not the current focusing screens.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)