I know that. So what?
I have 20/13 vision with my glasses. Yet, using a viewfinder magnifier definitely shows me more detail than without. Thus, the basic viewfinder is exceeding my visual acuity.
Which is true.
But I didn't claim that. I claimed the viewfinder has zero lag. I didn't claim zero shutter lag.
On the other side, when you want a large DOF, the 4/3 systemn has an advantage, specially with Olys built in IS. On a FF you may have to step down your f stop so you end up with a to long exposure time for handheld photos.
--
No, that's a myth, and IS lenses are available for full-frame.
So up the ISO - the larger sensor inherently has higher ISO capability because it's larger.
It makes a big difference to how much that image can be magnified.
This is just a matter of magnification, or rather the lack of it. With magnified live view you can see detail that you could never see with a reflex viewfinder because if you magnified it that much you would be examining the structure of the stippled focusing screen.
The viewfinder is simply an aid to taking photographs.
Most of the time, most people don't magnify it at all.
That doesn't negate the fact that the TTL OVF is providing more resolution than my eye can see.
It's the way we frame photographs, and it's the way we hold focus points on subjects. On fast-moving subjects, I find that EVF lag means I can't even get the subject in the frame, much less shoot it.
They'll still use power, prevent PD AF and have lag. As far as I'm concerned, those last two are unrecoverable death blows.
EVFs and LCDs have use in some specialized circumstances. I use them when I have a camera mounted to my telescope, for instance. However, for more than 99% of my shots, they are very drastically inferior inherently .
Current PD AF systems can run at hundreds of Hz and only need one sample to determine proper current focus position, two to determine velocity and three to determine acceleration. CD AF systems need tens of samples just to get the current proper focus position. I don't see how taking tens of samples from a big, slow sensor will ever be as fast as taking one sample from a small, fast sensor.
Tastes, tastes... VFs are meant to take pictures, not to view the real world. In that respect, EVFs are infinitely more flexible.
Interesting argument: first time I see it exposed so clearly. Lag is also a non starter, especially in bursts.
Cheers Lee,
They can add resolution, but they can never eliminate lag. Adding resolution adds lag and adds power consumption. Think about what has to happen. Photons enter the lens and strike the sensor. The sensor has to accumulate enough of them for an image. The sensor must be read out. The raw data has to be demosaiced and processed (gamma, color, downsampling, etc.), and then that image has to be passed to the microdisplay. That display then has to display it. You can't do all of that without lag. You might be able to reduce that lag to tens of milliseconds but even that is too long for fast-moving subjects.
No, it wasn't.
I don't review my pictures while I'm taking them, even on my EVF camera. Doing so means missing shots because I'm looking at the image I just took instead of observing the scene for additional shooting opportunities.
I suspect the sensor is not sampled that fast, and the images are not processed that fast, and they certainly aren't in low-light. Only the display refresh is that fast, and that is irrelevant to lag time.
I don't. I would accept 6ms.
It's not the lens. DPreview's "demonstration" of how fast the G1 focuses was a good demonstration of why CD is so slow. The lens is fast, the camera overshot the right point, then had to go back to find it. PD doesn't do that.
The point is not to make zero lag, but to make the lag to be imperceptible. Your eye-brain combo is a sensor itself, and has some of the problems as an EVF has. In particular, your eye already has lag (and for the very same reasons you described above!). You just don't notice it.
Come on, it was. Read the reviews. True, not perfect, but indeed almost. And take into account that this is the first EVIL ever! I would have never expected the first EVIL to have such a great EVF in the first try. And all reviewers were equally surprised. Pany did such a fantastic job, that simply everyone was surprised. Simply a spectacular job.
I suppose it depends also on what you shoot and which are the conditions. My experience is exactly the opposite. I am tired of throwing away series of several pictures after taking them, when I review them in the LCDs and see the mess, and the bird was gone forever. With an EVF, you take ONE bad picture, the next one will be corrected thanks to the autoreview in the EVF (and if you don't want autoreview, just dissable it). And for the third pic, you're right, you don't need to review the image, but touch the shutter and the review is gone. This is seamless already in P&Ss.
That will require it to be in the single digits of milliseconds. Not gonna happen.
I have. The text and the samples are in direct conflict with each other. The thing performs no better than most of the better P&S's.
Three contradictory terms.
The non-gasoline car will be far more useful.It's as inevitable as a non-gasoline car... it will just come much sooner.
This claim is just religion.
LOL!!!
A statement common to those not knowing what they are talking about.
Agreed (in some cases), but that wasn't his claim.
Uhhh...no. Image circle size often doesn't change the size of the lens at all, and where it does it's by a modest amount.
My favourite analogy on this question. Would you prefer high resolution monitors instead of windows on your houses? With gain for dark days and information about temperature, weather forecast etc?
