I agree
Okay, worst photoshop job ever, but you get the idea...
--
more bONGO at
http://www.bongolia.com
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why are people so obsessed with viewfinders?
- Thread starter JanKritzinger
- Start date
Okay, worst photoshop job ever, but you get the idea...
--
more bONGO at
http://www.bongolia.com
tomhongkong
Veteran Member
Same here including fuji f31fd
tom
tom
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
The NEX actually stops down the aperture and gains up the screen, so you get full time DOF "preview. " It is actually a lot more accurate than DOF preview with ground glass OVFs.
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
Exactly. Someone needs to come up with a foldable loupe for easy carrying.
tomhongkong
Veteran Member
Sorry, but I gain no pleasure from seeing a video of a great creature being shot.
Added to which all it says is that you can aim using vision from both eyes. It does not answer the fundamental questions of
stability
practicality of holding a camera with a long/heavy lens away from the body
vision in bright light
dealing with eye correction
each to his own, I guess
tom
Added to which all it says is that you can aim using vision from both eyes. It does not answer the fundamental questions of
stability
practicality of holding a camera with a long/heavy lens away from the body
vision in bright light
dealing with eye correction
each to his own, I guess
tom
Danjojo
Forum Enthusiast
To have more stability using an OVF/EVF over using an LCD alone would require having arms much longer in length than average. The most steady hold you can do unsupported is having your elbows pointing down as much as possible and tucked into your body along your chest/rib-cage. You can ease up and be using an LCD at that point or you can have your head tilted down and brow up against the camera using the OVF/EVF.
Once your head is tilted down and you sandwich the camera between hands and brow your neck muscles come into the mix and add another factor of instability. If you were to have your head straight up and naturally supported by bone structure you can not have your elbows tucked in to the body....hence the much longer arms than average.
The whole point of the video is to give an idea that you use an eye on the subject alone and the other eye has the subject framed in the LCD and it becomes as one image stacked on one another. Compared to traditional eye 2-4" from scope or with cameras pressed right up against the OVF/EVF and the other eye closed.
It's techniques scientifically validated and real-world proven every day over in our current war-zones. If you do any recreational firearms shooting you can give it a try or see if it applies for you with cameras as well.
I don't have any great pro looking sports shots to show off...no surviving photos beyond the past 4 months or so and those are all with my family. No work for past year just trying to relax and raise my 2 year old, 1 year old, and 2 month old twins.
I can try to play around away from the house over the next week or so and put up some examples though.
Once your head is tilted down and you sandwich the camera between hands and brow your neck muscles come into the mix and add another factor of instability. If you were to have your head straight up and naturally supported by bone structure you can not have your elbows tucked in to the body....hence the much longer arms than average.
The whole point of the video is to give an idea that you use an eye on the subject alone and the other eye has the subject framed in the LCD and it becomes as one image stacked on one another. Compared to traditional eye 2-4" from scope or with cameras pressed right up against the OVF/EVF and the other eye closed.
It's techniques scientifically validated and real-world proven every day over in our current war-zones. If you do any recreational firearms shooting you can give it a try or see if it applies for you with cameras as well.
I don't have any great pro looking sports shots to show off...no surviving photos beyond the past 4 months or so and those are all with my family. No work for past year just trying to relax and raise my 2 year old, 1 year old, and 2 month old twins.
I can try to play around away from the house over the next week or so and put up some examples though.
tko
Forum Pro
Say it well, say it short.
You want a camera or a cellphone?
You want a camera or a cellphone?
Gil Knutson
Senior Member
I have yet to see or use any P&S successfully in the summertime, or when the sun is out in the winter/spring/fall. I would expect both features to be in any system I would preferably use.
Besides, it looks so incredibly gorky when someone stands there when taking pics at arms length with some P&S...
--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada
Fantastic! Now all we would needs is a grip and a hot shoe and we'll have all the right ingrediants!Exactly. Someone needs to come up with a foldable loupe for easy carrying.
Ah, the kinder, gentler Carl!There's always NEX-t time
It happens, don't worry about it.
Like the pun? I thought it was cool.
C
--
http://www.CarlGarrardPhotography.com
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com
Anastigmat
Forum Pro
Actually no. The rangfinder can focus the shot better than an optical viewfinder. However, the single lens reflex viewfinder has more accurate framing, especially with long lenses and very wide angle lenses.
Since SLR autofocus was incorporated into the mirror system, it makes sense to keep the viewfinder even in digital SLR cameras. Since the mirror is there, why not take advantage of it. Plus, there is no lag time in refreshing the optical viewfinder but there is lag time in updating the LCD display. Since photography is all about the decisive moment, being able to see things in real time is important. That is one reason we will never see pros using anything other than cameras with optical viewfinders for their most important jobs.
Yes, an LCD screen has its advantages, especially in candid street photography. It is even more useful if the screen can swivel and tilt.
That is how most users will probably use the NEX, without a viewfinder, but some do wish for an electronic viewfinder because it allows them to see without glasses. Some people, for example, have far sightedness. They just can't see the LCD screen very well even when holding the camera at arm's length. With an electronic viewfinder and built-in dioptre correction, they don't have the same problem.
Why not make a viewfinder available so people can decide for themselves whether to buy one or not?
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
A lot of times when I'm laying in the focus and DOF coverage of the animal the critical points are at near opposite ends of the frame. Or, more commonly there are several points scattered all over the frame. A viewfinder that could only do this in a magnified view would simply not work, or I'd have to spend a very long time scrolling around the frame checking points in magnified view, while the animal was moving which would constantly change the focus on all points and the alignment with the lens axis!
Also the more critical the shot of a moving animal (or even still life) Murphey's law says the more likely the AF locked focus on something other than what you wanted and you will have close to zero time to MF to correct it or the shot is gone. And this scenario happens quite often even with the most accurate AF.
Walt
tko
Forum Pro
(1) better stability, better body position
(2) keeps up with 10 FPS
(3) better light blocking, never washed out
(4) better camera positioning, can track fast moving objects better
(5) better in tight areas were you don't have an arm's length
(6) better when you don't want everyone to see what you are doing
(7) better scene framing and blocking
(8) can frame even before camera is up and ready
(9) you don't look stupid with hands held out like some stupid tourist
(10) diopter adjustment so you don't need your reading glasses just to take a photo
bonus reason
(10) have you ever held a 300MM F2.8 zoom with hands extended out?
Bottom line is, for low performance, LCD's are OK. For real cameras, you need a viewfinder.
I would not pretend to tell anyone what type of camera they need
(2) keeps up with 10 FPS
(3) better light blocking, never washed out
(4) better camera positioning, can track fast moving objects better
(5) better in tight areas were you don't have an arm's length
(6) better when you don't want everyone to see what you are doing
(7) better scene framing and blocking
(8) can frame even before camera is up and ready
(9) you don't look stupid with hands held out like some stupid tourist
(10) diopter adjustment so you don't need your reading glasses just to take a photo
(10) have you ever held a 300MM F2.8 zoom with hands extended out?
Bottom line is, for low performance, LCD's are OK. For real cameras, you need a viewfinder.
I would not pretend to tell anyone what type of camera they need
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
Large bolts through the neck work ;-)I've never attached a camera to my face. Do you use velcro or glue? Perhaps there's a better solution.
Though hot tar and feathers are the best
Walt
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
And in my night shooting will ruin my night vision.
Then I'll step on the cottonmouth I can't see and get snakebit. Which sure messes up shooting for a while.
Walt
Martin Datzinger
Senior Member
What this rather dreadfull video shows is using an optical eye level viewfinder with the other eye open. I do that from time to time with my SLR as well.
I don't want to know hunters but I guess if you show them a rifle to be held at arms length with a video screen attached for aiming purposes they will laugh very hard.
But of course, with long enough training one can eventually hit something with an LCD as well. Question is why not do it the far more natural way with an eye-level OVF in the first place?
Kind regards,
Martin
--
http://www.datzinger.net
I don't want to know hunters but I guess if you show them a rifle to be held at arms length with a video screen attached for aiming purposes they will laugh very hard.
But of course, with long enough training one can eventually hit something with an LCD as well. Question is why not do it the far more natural way with an eye-level OVF in the first place?
Kind regards,
Martin
--
http://www.datzinger.net
Franka T.L.
Veteran Member
well, you might find LV ok and already serving , but not for many others ...
--
--
- Franka -
goetz48
Senior Member
The only discussion is optical or electronic viewfinder. My tendency is to good electronic viewfinders (1 Mpixel at least). LCD only for shots where it is impossible to put the eyes to the viewfinder as it sometimes happens with macro shots.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum