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

JimH said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree that the EVF would need to be extremely well done before it'd be compelling to move there. This includes the ability to read data off the main sensor rapidly enough for smooth panning without sacrificing image quality in the process through sensor heating and/or reduced sensel size from high-bandwidth I/O lanes needed on chip.

If this can be done, using a high-resolution, high-dynamic range technology such as OLED, there'd be one additional advantage that I don't think is mentioned below (I could be wrong ... thread has grown large): the ability to have two viewfinders to give both eyes something to view. This might provide a more involving experience (albeit still 2D) with potentially less fatigue.

David

JimH said:

Look at any given frame from a TV broadcast. You'll see that very
often, the "shutter speed" used is very low, and that individual
frame from the video is quite blurred. Yet you never see it when
viewing the TV broadcast or a movie.

Why is that? It's because the next frame is presented to you in
1/30th of a second and your eyes are not fast enough to really
critically view any single frame.

Click to expand...

i don't think this is a suitable argument. sure, a TV broadcast "looks" to be smooth motion because the frames are stacked on top of each other. but if you compare the motion on a television set to the motion of a person standing right next to you you can clearly tell the difference.

finally, no matter how fast you make this LCD screen, you will never do away with lag time. do you have a point & shoot camera with an LCD for framing? have you ever put your hand in front of the lens and waved it back and forth? there's quite a lag there, isn't there. granted that can be improved, but it can never be as fast as light itself. the TTL optical viewfinder is as fast as light itself, and that's as fast as it needs to be (becuase it is the light itself that we are capturing with the camrea).

JimH said:

Only when the image becomes still, or stable, can your eyes and brain
begin to critically analyze the image.

The same would be true for us when using the EVF. For moving
objects, or when panning, we can't see the detail anyhow. So there's
no need for it to be there.

Click to expand...

i disagree. i think that the detail needs to be there for the camera's sake! if you are "panning" and the sensor is delivering slightly blurred images to the AF sensor 30 times a second i don't see how it's going to AF properly.

matthew saville said:

I don't know about you, but I spend MORE than enough time staring at
all sorts of LCD screens during the week. When the weekend comes and
it's time to shoot an event, the LAST thing I want to see is another
LCD screen.

I'm sorry, just not interested. At the first sign of a coming DSLR
generation transitioning to EVF, I will stockpile OVF cameras and
keep them all to myself.

I think most ALL experienced photographers will be in the same boat
as I am...

=Matt=

Click to expand...

that is actually a really good point that i hadn't thought about until now. after you posted that i kind of realize why i liked my old XT so much when i first got it. i treated it just like a flim SLR. i mean sure i would check pictures after taking them occasionally, and i would adjust menu settings when i had to, but for the most part the LCD on the back of the camera was turned off. i dunno maybe just something about not having to rely on a flashy LCD screen made me feel more connected with real life than 1s and 0s for a few hours. but then again i am a tech-minimalist. my cell phone sends text mesages, but it doesn't have a camera or browse the web. my PC hasn't been replaced in the better part of a decade and it still runs fine. and as much as i LOVE music, i absolutely LOATHE portable music players. and believe it or not, i'm not an old fart i'm 25 years old! my generation grew up with the modem for crying out loud...

i just like looking at a scene as it exists in real life and capturing it! maybe that's also why i never saw the appeal of a 3.0" LCD screen on the back of a 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. 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?

Click to expand...

So are door knobs but we still use em cause they are simple and it just plain works.

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 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...

100% frame coverage is overrated. Most people prefer having the buffer room of smaller coverage.

Steen Bay said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good luck trying that with sports, I dont know about you but I dont have enough time with contrast or manual focus in sports.

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,
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

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/shhe

First off, I'm probably biased towards the kinds of shooting that I mostly do.

I don't shoot sports. And I really don't do BIF, either.

So I tend to think in terms of what would make my life easier. And to me, even the current 40D live view (magnified) works pretty well for many manual focus situations. So an even better, faster, lower-latency in-camera EVF would probably be handy for me a lot of the time.

I also wouldn't compare a cheap P&S of today against what "might" be possible in a fancy DSLR down the road a few years. I'm just speculating about what could happen in the future (in the spirit of what the original poster asked). It's speculation, of course. I'm not suggesting that we install the crummy AF and back-of-camera display from a cheap P&S of today into a DSLR, and call it good

I'd expect to be using a similar AF system to what we've got now, and NOT rely on contrast detect AF from the sensor's data except when we choose to use that mode for slow-moving or fixed scenes. So the AF should not suffer at all because we'd still have what we've got now. We might have contrast-based AF to supplement it, as an option, but I would not toss out what we've already got.

I was mostly responding to jpr2's concerns. He asked:

"Jim, so you mean this EVF-only DSLR to be a still-frames, studio camera only?
Even with a modest 300/4L IS + 1.4x, such 1/500 SS is rather slow ("

And I was talking about shutter speeds.

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Broadcast TV is really amazing, even at 30 FPS. Any given frame, pulled out of that stream, can be very blurred. Yet we don't notice it because we cannot analyze 30 frames per second for sharpness, really. And we can't when viewing through a viewfinder either.

So the "virtual shutter speed" required by the EVF could be quite low, just as it can be for any video that is not being analyzed frame by frame.

So that's all I was saying.

I was not addressing "lag", and I was not suggesting that the camera itself could not use a high shutter speed for the actual photo exposure. I was just saying that for the purposes of the EVF, the virtual shutter speed need not be high. We cannot benefit from super high shutter speeds in that part of the system anyhow. Things DO need to be stable in the frame for us to begin analyzing focus, and for the purposes of framing or following action, we don't need each "frame" of the video to be dead sharp either.

The AF system, on the other hand, will still be getting its optical images directly, the way it always has. And of course, for the actual photograph, we'd have any shutter speed we want. That's a separate issue from the virtual shutter used to generate the EVF image.

My main reason for wanting an EVF option would be for manual focusing. When you think about watching a TV image, you can see if it's in focus or not, even on moving subjects. Having that same degree of ability to judge focus in the EVF would be sufficient, I think.

And when things stop moving, or slow way down, then the individual frames would become sharp enough to allow us to do that very critical manual focusing. So it'd be fine, I think, even with a fairly slow "virtual shutter speed" for the EVF image.

That was my point - concerning the virtual shutter speed used to generate the EVF.

I can see how the currently available live-view lag would bother people shooting sports or BIF, etc. But I'd like to see what can be done two years down the road. The live-view of the current 40D would be a pain for BIF or sports or a lot of moving subjects. I totally agree. The lag would just kill you. And perhaps that's where the virtual shutter speed does become a factor. To get low lag, you'd need a fast shutter speed. And that might end up being a real stumbling block to this.

But I'm not sure we'll be stuck with as much delay as we see now forever. I'd hope that improvements could be made over the years.

And if, as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, we end up with a system where you can select between EVF and OVF or a blend of the two, then that might ultimately be where things would go so we'd have the best of both available.

I do see possible advantages to an EVF. So it'd be neat if the problems could be overcome because the EVF's advantages would be nice to have available.

--
Jim H.

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag. To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it, you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies, you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual feedback "feel" instant.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Craig Gillette said:

Also, "needing" new lenses
means there is no economic advantage to staying with the current
brand. A competitor's system might be inviting.

Click to expand...

That's one of reasons why I think the (first) EVIL system will likely not come from Canon/Nikon but from Panasonic or Samsung/Pentax.

I think EVIL will definitely come sooner or later and I'm looking forward to it. The two main issues are viewfinder lag and autofocus. An optical VF as on the rangefinder cameras can be the solution for the first issue. The second is more difficult but I'm sure engineers can come up with a satisfactory solution, even if not quite as good for moving targets as the phase detection AF in DSLRs.

It will always use more battery power than the optical finder. In some shooting situations you have no access to powerpoints for days and then this becomes a major drawback.

Personally I prefer the optical finder over an electronic finder. I find it clearly. Also nothing is faster than the speed of light, and EVF cameras may always be slower.

I assume the "bridge cameras" where mainly a thing when DSLR's were mostly unaffordable and they were the only way of getting a camera with more manual control.

Today they stay in the race against the cheaper DLSR mostly by offering a larger and larger zoom range, now 28-500mm film equivalent in a smaller package.

Nevertheless for people who want it, it may be good to have this choice.
--
Chris

ljfinger said:

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to
track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag.
To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it,
you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just
to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies,
you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual
feedback "feel" instant.

Click to expand...

How fast (or rather, how slow..) is our own response-time? (right word?) Something like 1/10 sec. at best? So, does it really matter much whether the lag time is 1/30 or 1/500 sec.?

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to
track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag.
To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it,
you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just
to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies,
you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual
feedback "feel" instant.

Click to expand...

How fast (or rather, how slow..) is our own response-time? (right
word?) Something like 1/10 sec. at best? So, does it really matter
much whether the lag time is 1/30 or 1/500 sec.?

Click to expand...

Response time isn't the issue. That's how fast you can respond to a stimulus, not how fast you see (or feel) a response to a stimulus you provide.

If you don't think this matters, try positioning the tip of a flimsy fishing pole compared to the tip of a stiff steel or carbon-fiber rod and see which you provides you with better control.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger said:

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to
track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag.
To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it,
you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just
to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies,
you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual
feedback "feel" instant.

Click to expand...

How fast (or rather, how slow..) is our own response-time? (right
word?) Something like 1/10 sec. at best? So, does it really matter
much whether the lag time is 1/30 or 1/500 sec.?

Click to expand...

Response time isn't the issue. That's how fast you can respond to a
stimulus, not how fast you see (or feel) a response to a stimulus you
provide.

If you don't think this matters, try positioning the tip of a flimsy
fishing pole compared to the tip of a stiff steel or carbon-fiber rod
and see which you provides you with better control.

Click to expand...

Well, it's you (the photographer) that have to activate the shutter to 'catch the moment', so response time matters.

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to
track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag.
To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it,
you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just
to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies,
you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual
feedback "feel" instant.

Click to expand...

How fast (or rather, how slow..) is our own response-time? (right
word?) Something like 1/10 sec. at best? So, does it really matter
much whether the lag time is 1/30 or 1/500 sec.?

Click to expand...

Response time isn't the issue. That's how fast you can respond to a
stimulus, not how fast you see (or feel) a response to a stimulus you
provide.

If you don't think this matters, try positioning the tip of a flimsy
fishing pole compared to the tip of a stiff steel or carbon-fiber rod
and see which you provides you with better control.

Click to expand...

Well, it's you (the photographer) that have to activate the shutter
to 'catch the moment', so response time matters.

Click to expand...

That's predictive. It's the tracking that's the problem. I've tried tracking fast-moving aircraft with my S3IS. I can get lucky sometimes, but most of the time I just can't frame tightly because I can't track accurately. I have no such trouble at all with my SLRs, even at longer (sometime much, much longer) focal lengths.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

matthew saville said:

I don't know about you, but I spend MORE than enough time staring at
all sorts of LCD screens during the week. When the weekend comes and
it's time to shoot an event, the LAST thing I want to see is another
LCD screen.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that an OVF is much 'nicer' to look through. It gives you the unlimited Dynamic Range of the real world, but an EVF shows you the cameras interpretation of reality, with its limited DR. It shows you how the final image will look like, and that I find very useful.

ljfinger said:

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

Steen Bay said:

ljfinger said:

JimH said:

My point was that for the purposes of the live-view images, we really
don't need to have a high "virtual shutter speed". That's because to
our eyes, any given frame in the EVF would not need to be taken at a
high shutter speed because it'll just be immediately replaced with a
new image before we've had a chance to analyze and notice the blur in
that particular frame out of the "stream" of frames.

I still hold to this idea.

Click to expand...

This is only true if you're not trying to use visual feedback to
track a fast-moving object. Smooth looking doesn't mean zero lag.
To get to a lag time that's "low enough" so that you don't feel it,
you're going to need frame rates far beyond what are necessary just
to make motion-pictures look smooth. While 24fps is okay in movies,
you'll need more like 500fps to make camera movement - to - visual
feedback "feel" instant.

Click to expand...

How fast (or rather, how slow..) is our own response-time? (right
word?) Something like 1/10 sec. at best? So, does it really matter
much whether the lag time is 1/30 or 1/500 sec.?

Click to expand...

Response time isn't the issue. That's how fast you can respond to a
stimulus, not how fast you see (or feel) a response to a stimulus you
provide.

If you don't think this matters, try positioning the tip of a flimsy
fishing pole compared to the tip of a stiff steel or carbon-fiber rod
and see which you provides you with better control.

Click to expand...

Well, it's you (the photographer) that have to activate the shutter
to 'catch the moment', so response time matters.

Click to expand...

That's predictive. It's the tracking that's the problem. I've tried
tracking fast-moving aircraft with my S3IS. I can get lucky
sometimes, but most of the time I just can't frame tightly because I
can't track accurately. I have no such trouble at all with my SLRs,
even at longer (sometime much, much longer) focal lengths.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

and try tracking randomly moving soccer players with a 400 2.8 and lag....

some reason that such a limited number would be a vastly inadequate a
compromise:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=28257932

jpr2
--

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

Steen Bay said:

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?

Click to expand...

When camera makers get rid of the mirror in DSLR cameras, we will probably see car makers remove the steering wheel from cars.

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 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

Click to expand...

If you move the lens closer to the focal plane, then it creates its new set of problems, such as vignetting, because the angle of incidence of light striking the sensor for a wide angle lens will deviate more from the vertical. The only reason I see a camera deviating from the proven swing mirror design is when more frames per second is needed for sports models. In these cameras, the movable mirror will probably be replaced by the fixed pellicle mirror.

KALEL33 said:

Pro 1 sensor size=8.80 x 6.60 mm
40D sensor size=22.2 x 14.8

Click to expand...

R1 sensor size = 21.5 x 14.4 mm

KALEL33 said:

Not even close and the same is with the Sony. Where did you hear
they had the same sensor as the 40D?

Click to expand...

--
Bob

'There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.' - Ansel Adams

Canon 40D, 70-200mm f4L IS, 28-135mm IS, Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 Macro, 100-400 mm f4.5L IS
Sony R1
Canon Pro1

With the advancements in live view and looking at the ads from sony showing a digicam approach of using an slr, I wouldn't be surprised to see a viewfinder of any type dropped from some future models, just like many digicams. The new generation of pic takers apparently never realized that cameras were put up to your eye for an accurate and easy to see view.

Greg

plantdoc said:

With the advancements in live view and looking at the ads from sony
showing a digicam approach of using an slr, I wouldn't be surprised
to see a viewfinder of any type dropped from some future models, just
like many digicams. The new generation of pic takers apparently never
realized that cameras were put up to your eye for an accurate and
easy to see view.

Click to expand...

a serious use with no VF? for action photogs? - what a dumb idea

indeed, the moment it happens some [perhaps even extensive?]
stockpiling of decent DSLRs would be in order,

jpr2
--

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

jpr2 said:

some reason that such a limited number would be a vastly inadequate a
compromise:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=28257932

Click to expand...

It would certainly be a good thing if we could "eliminate the subjective from our argument" .. and remember that with an EVF we can always magnify the image and get all the resolving power we want.