Reading mode: Light Dark

OVF: Solution looking for problem

Go to last post
For EVL to work, the sensor must be on constantly, and so must the display.
This eats into battery life and longterm I'd think sensor life as well.

The mirror and OVF allows you to frame the shot w/o waking up the camera (and focus it too, if you have a mechanically linked focus ring) Anyone else ever use a (D)SLR w a big lens as a spotting scope for birding? besides not wasting power, the OVF has much better resolution than any EVF.
There will be a time when the OVF is obsolite, but that day isn't here yet.
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
 
Rens said:
olyflyer said:
Obviously you haven't looked deeper into the disadvantages of EVIL,
or you can't imagine any.
Click to expand...
Of course, one of its advantages (along with any other system) is you
don't have to buy it if you don't like it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's one of it's greatest advantages. Unfortunately, I am saying the OP has not looked deeper into its dis*advantages or can't imagine any.
Rens said:
But I'm inclined to agree here. Even though I could well be
interested when it arrives.
Click to expand...
I will not buy one. If I need a second, and a very small body I get the E-420 (or similar). If they are not made anymore I get the smallest with OVF. If Oly stops making OVF cameras I get another brand, regardless how much I like Oly. I am married to a woman, not to a camera brand.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/
 
Let me tell you this.

I consider myself an advanced enthusiast that started fresh with Digital. Just lost my SLR virginity last week.

I've mostly shoot with a Canon Pro1 during the past 3 years which features an articulated Monitor just like the Oly E3.

I started using the EVF, but later discovered how to use the Monitor for framing.
Since then I haven't looked back and use the monitor 95% of times.

The reasons are many but the main ones are:
1) Is much more versatile and liberating, I can compose much better any shot.

2) For stability. I usually hold it at waist level, but there are many ways you can hold it for maximum stability, like on the window frame of the car,on a table, a handrail, etc. But never at the infamous arm's length which is an invitation for camera shake.

3) Comfort. When on a tripod, or monopod, you don't have to set those things too high to reach your eye level or bend over to see what are you shooting.

Now, I just got this DSLR for the first time in my life and I like the TTL OVF and the best is the AF speed, but HATE the fact that is very limiting and uncomfortable to use. I wanted the E3, but it is too expensive and Live view is still not there.

If I have to chose a dream camera, it would be one that gives me both an OVF and an articulated monitor, just like the E3, but better live view.

EVF is the worst option of them all.

These micro 4/3 cameras shouldn't bother with an EVF at all and instead put the resources in a Hi-Q articulated monitor keeping size and cost to minimum.

Also, I hope they don't put a fixed monitor. That would be a disaster, is a very bad option since is very difficult to use stable when there is nothing to place the camera on and then you need a EVF or OVF for stable framing.

With concern to the electronic delay, EVF and LCD Monitors have worked for me in all shooting conditions except the VERY rare 1% occasion when I'm photographing a distant bird in flight.
But that is a 1% of my shots which mean it is a non-issue.

I'm pretty sure that most of the "OVF-or-nothing" pundits have never fully used a camera with a good articulating screen or have never bother to try.

Videographers have used these things for YEARS professionally so the complaints normally come from very conservative film days SLR kind of guys.

To conclude:
1) Articulated Monitors are the best and most versatile.

2) OVF TTL, second best, but add bulk and cost since are always kind of redundant in the presence of an LCD screen. They save power too, which is nice.
3) EVF, unnecessary evil.
 
While I agree with much of what you have said, there are significant challenges for an electronic view finder to overcome:
  • they are slow, especially in low light situations
  • live view (and I am just going to lump the electronic view finder in this) tends to use a lot of battery
  • they may not provide as much detail as optical view finders
Due to this, I would not be surprised to see that we will not see any high-end cameras without an optical view finder anytime soon.

As technology improves, things may change. However, at this stage I do not see MFT in any way as a replacement for 4/3 and do not think that it is intended as such.
 
One of the big advantages of EVF is that you get (presumably well implemented) contrast-based focusing, which can be much more accurate than phase-detection focusing. No more front-focusing or imprecise-focusing blues.

I love SLRs for people photos, but for the times I go hiking and all I want are sharp photos of nature (no animals, but landscape, places, etc), I will be very happy with the light weight of the MFT, and I may even get more consistent high-quality results due to the more accurate focusing (yes, with the E-520 I can also use contrast-based, but presumably it will be better implemented in an MFT camera).

--
Luca
 
Thanks for all the thoughtful contributions... interesting stuff.

I’m a bit flummoxed by some of these responses. I don’t think the key point of my post was well understood. Here it is again:

The flipping mirror is a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

The mirror system was intended to use a single source of light for two distinct purposes: 1) to expose an image surface and, 2) to display the image to the user.

An electronic sensor can both capture the image, and display it to the user. And it can do these things pretty much simultaneously. So the problem which the mirror was invented to solve no longer exists. That is the key point I was trying to make.

Lag, resolution and dynamic range can be addressed with increased buffer size and improved sensor and display quality. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the viewfinder is there to help you frame the shot.

I think that to some extent we all conceive and even compose shots without the camera. We look at the scene with our naked eyes, consider composition, light, shade, etc., and then just use the camera to frame and capture the image. There may be exceptions such as long-lens sniping and birding. But do many of you really stick your eye on the optical view finder and wave the camera about trying to compose a shot? Or sit there waiting for something to happen? I use the viewfinder to frame the shot. But most of the work – whether it be composing or waiting for a magic moment – is done with the naked eye.

So, really – what problem is there that an optical viewfinder solves that cannot be solved by some other means? If we wanted to design a camera from scratch, would we have an optical viewfinder? If we had to design an autofocus system from scratch, would a box full of flipping mirror be the best solution?

Olyflyer – I am sorry that you found my post 'really annoying'. While many of your posts are interesting and informative, they are all too often petulant and also 'really annoying'. But I respect your right to post 'really annoying' posts and don’t have a go at you for doing so. If my post really annoys you, I humbly apologize, and I hope you can offer to me the same polite and respectful disregard that I offer to you.

--
  • Andrew
 
I have to admit, when I use a brdige camera or mFT I won't miss the flppy mirror (noisy).
Art_P said:
For EVL to work, the sensor must be on constantly, and so must the
display.
This eats into battery life and longterm I'd think sensor life as well.
Click to expand...
True, however, durability hasn't really been an issue in the last 10 years or so of digital PnS's... However, shutter life HAS been.
Art_P said:
The mirror and OVF allows you to frame the shot w/o waking up the
camera (and focus it too, if you have a mechanically linked focus
ring)
Click to expand...
True, and I always forget to turn on the camera, and miss the shot :( ha ha...
Art_P said:
Anyone else ever use a (D)SLR w a big lens as a spotting scope
for birding? besides not wasting power, the OVF has much better
resolution than any EVF.
Click to expand...
True far better resolution!

However, for the most part AF should do the job, and EVF/LCD should be used for framing. Framing can and has been done on low resolution EVF/LCDs for years, many great pictures have resulted.

As for manual focus there are many techniques that can aid EVF/LCDs. Which is the great part about it, it's very flixible, you could have focus highlighting right on your subject, even with low resolution you could see exactly whats in focus.

Now only that, but if you're a jpg shooter you can see white balance and exposure even without the use of live histogram (which is an option as well).
Art_P said:
There will be a time when the OVF is obsolite, but that day isn't
here yet.
Click to expand...
Agreed, actually I'd say that there will always be a place for OVF, it has great benefits... film still isn't gone, so why should the OVF?

But indeed EVF/LCD has many benfits.

We have to realize that we're not necessarily trying to "duplicate the OVF" with a , but with digital... but we can supplement the functionality of OVF (framing/af) with a whole lot of extra functionality/information that can help take photographs better. Basically improve on it.

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510 L1
http://joesiv.smugmug.com
 
Bottom line is that, for action shots and very low light
an OVF has a big advantage.

For just about every other application, a EVF will
fill the bill nicely. It can also providede exposure
info on the display as well as a veiw of what the
final capture will look like. Tilting & swiveling
displays allow alternate perspectives and increase
creativity.

If both types are available than we can all have what we
prefer or both if we wish to.

Is that so bad?

--Keep your lens clean and your mind open.

http://www.pbase.com/peterb/
 
Art_P said:
For EVL to work, the sensor must be on constantly, and so must the
display.
This eats into battery life and longterm I'd think sensor life as well.
The mirror and OVF allows you to frame the shot w/o waking up the
camera (and focus it too, if you have a mechanically linked focus
ring) Anyone else ever use a (D)SLR w a big lens as a spotting scope
for birding? besides not wasting power, the OVF has much better
resolution than any EVF.
There will be a time when the OVF is obsolite, but that day isn't
here yet.
Click to expand...
Everything is a trade-off. There are times when OVF is the preferred solution, and times when EVF is. People seem to be so focused on having either or or the other, where I see it as I can have both. Interchangeable lenses also means interchangeable bodies.
 
OLED is already brighter and has a higher contrast ratio than LCD. It also has a response time of 0.01ms. This removes the LCD blurring, the LCD backlight that prevents high contrast and poor viewing in sunlight. This technology already exists, it's not science fiction.

What will you have to say once the speed of the EVF in delivering the display matches the mirror box lag? This is equivalence, but with an electronic versus mechanical solution, the potential for decreasing the lag is much higher than with the mirror. This is what remains unproven and it will be very interesting to see just how Live LiveView will become.

The same goes for contrast detection speeds. Phase detection has had how many years of development behind it? Contrast detection development is and will continue to improve at a quicker rate, and I really don't see this being an issue for long.

The first m4/3 bodies will have limits. People will call it less capable than the DSLR and they will be correct. But by the second or third generation, things will very likely change.
 
Art_P said:
For EVL to work, the sensor must be on constantly, and so must the
display.
This eats into battery life and longterm I'd think sensor life as well.
The mirror and OVF allows you to frame the shot w/o waking up the
camera (and focus it too, if you have a mechanically linked focus
ring) Anyone else ever use a (D)SLR w a big lens as a spotting scope
for birding? besides not wasting power, the OVF has much better
resolution than any EVF.
There will be a time when the OVF is obsolite, but that day isn't
here yet.
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/
Click to expand...
 
illy said:
when i can track fast moving objects and lock focus quickly, then yes
i agree with you, until then I'll stick to my crumbly old OVF
Click to expand...
CD-AF is actually better for tracking objects than phase-detection AF. Some fixed-lens cameras allow you to lock focus on an object (like a person's eye), recompose, and shoot - while the camera is still "locked" on that object, even if it moves. That's what high-end cameras are trying to solve with as many as 50(!!!) AF sensors.
 
BorisK1 said:
illy said:
when i can track fast moving objects and lock focus quickly, then yes
i agree with you, until then I'll stick to my crumbly old OVF
Click to expand...
CD-AF is actually better for tracking objects than phase-detection
AF. Some fixed-lens cameras allow you to lock focus on an object
(like a person's eye), recompose, and shoot - while the camera is
still "locked" on that object, even if it moves. That's what
high-end cameras are trying to solve with as many as 50(!!!) AF
sensors.
Click to expand...
i was talking about things doing 400 knots, or racing cars
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
 
There's viewing lag and there's shutter lag.

With an SLR, viewing lag is at the speed of light. Shutter lag is the time it takes at the time the shutter is actuated for the mirror to swing up and the shutter to open.

With an EVF, viewing lag is at the speed at which the sensor processes the image and sends it to the EVF. Shutter lag is reduced because the mirror no longer exists.

OLED displays are capable of 0.01ms, so smearing and other artifacts seen in older LCDs is not evident. They are also brighter and have higher contrast. The display is no longer part of the time factor, but the sensor to display pathway can still slow down.

This is especially evident in low light, when the image requires more processing to be usable (hence reports that at low light the EVF on the m4/3 prototype slows down and gets jerky... this is not because of the EVF, per se, but rather the low light processing engine).
 
I think anyone who has used and had experience of the CZ8080 will know that, although ponderous in operation, there is no doubting its ability to focus perfectly accurately every time using the pivot LCD. Not the clearest or the sharpest EVF in the world, but with practice and anticipation, even sports and moving subjects were all possible. With live histogram, and full EVF info, it was a pointer of things to come.

My 8080 pics are some of the sharpest I have, and with superb colour ...

On composing, I agree. I see the image before the camera is raised or set. To its extreme, that's how I use my Ricoh GRDII - pre-set, rough framing at waist level or eye, whatever is appropriate. With people shots, the beauty of using remote LCD is to be able frame and watch the subject and have eye contact, not raise a lump of camera to the eye ...

Of course all sorts of other scenarios benefit from using OVF, but overall the naked eye is the framing tool of choice ...

--
Kind regards,
Rich Simpson

UK Photo Safari Group
( http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg )
 
illy said:
BorisK1 said:
illy said:
when i can track fast moving objects and lock focus quickly, then yes
i agree with you, until then I'll stick to my crumbly old OVF
Click to expand...
CD-AF is actually better for tracking objects than phase-detection
AF. Some fixed-lens cameras allow you to lock focus on an object
(like a person's eye), recompose, and shoot - while the camera is
still "locked" on that object, even if it moves. That's what
high-end cameras are trying to solve with as many as 50(!!!) AF
sensors.
Click to expand...
i was talking about things doing 400 knots, or racing cars
Click to expand...
When tracking a moving target, especially for a fast-moving target in good light, the phase-detection system is actually at a disadvantage. Whenever the image of the car falls between the AF sensors, the camera loses its target lock and has to reacquire it. CD-AF system, on the other hand, can use every pixel of the main sensor - there are no coverage holes.

Now, initially acquiring the lock can be faster for the phase-detection system.
 
For that situation prefocus is the norm, right? So the problem lies in the fact that OVF provides you with information at the speed of light while the EVF is slowed down by the sensor to EVF pathway, which involves not just the physical pathway through circuits (which could conceivable be virtually the speed of light) but the processing pathway for translating the information read by the sensor into an image on the EVF. The EVF's response time to this information is not an issue any more (even LCDs can get down to 3-5ms, but the newer OLED technology goes below 1ms), but the information reaching that EVF is the bottleneck.
illy said:
BorisK1 said:
illy said:
when i can track fast moving objects and lock focus quickly, then yes
i agree with you, until then I'll stick to my crumbly old OVF
Click to expand...
CD-AF is actually better for tracking objects than phase-detection
AF. Some fixed-lens cameras allow you to lock focus on an object
(like a person's eye), recompose, and shoot - while the camera is
still "locked" on that object, even if it moves. That's what
high-end cameras are trying to solve with as many as 50(!!!) AF
sensors.
Click to expand...
i was talking about things doing 400 knots, or racing cars
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the inspiration, Louis...

If you have actually used a contempary EVIL, you'd know that the current resolution isn't that good. In fact, it's kinda fuzzy.

The whole point of using an eye level viewfinder instead of a LCD is not to see the photograph, it's to immerse yourself in the photograph, by blocking out everything else. You get a much better vision of what the shot will look like.

This is hard to do if you add the handicap of a somewhat fuzzy viewfinder. However, one has to acquire an eye for the finer details of photography before they truly appreciate what a handicap a less than clear viewfinder is.

I've been reacquainted with this when I recently purchased a camcorder after not having one for quite a few years. It has both a swing out LCD and an EVF. Sure enough, the LCD is easier for casual use, but the evf is definitely better if you're serious about composition. It's that 'immerse yourself in the composition' thing. However, the evf is still a bit fuzzy and lacking in detail, nothing like the CRT based vf on a pro level video camera, or the optical VF on the typical dslr.

Somewhere down the road, when evf resolution rises to the point where it can match the ovf in detail without costing a fortune, they will be a better solution. Right now, at least for me (and apparently a host of others), the drawback of a less than crystal clear display outweighs the benefits. Right now, I'd prefer to see an ovf with live data reflected onto the viewfinder. That would cover most of what an evf can do, without the loss of detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Back focus problem after E-400 disassembly
Replies
7
Views
8K
northcamel
N
B
The Corfield Lumar
Replies
2
Views
18K
Bosun Higgs
B
2
Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 stabilisation problem with A6700 IBIS in video?
Replies
9
Views
27K
DutchMM
D
M
150-400 + OM-1 fits in Ape Case ACPROLC18
Replies
5
Views
9K
MikeTX
M
Rob de Loe
Optical illusions with tilt
Replies
8
Views
6K
Rob de Loe
Rob de Loe

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