Reading mode: Light Dark

Optical viewfinders will dissappear...

Go to last post
I have seen some of the things you like to photograph and the subject matter is definitely demanding. Unfortunately for you, this type of extreme motion photography is nowhere near typical. What drives the market is the needs of the average shooter and it won't be long before those needs are better served by an electronic viewfinder. As someone already mentioned, DSLR style cameras will remain on the market but they will be expensive specialty items.

I do believe you are grossly underestimating the advances in EVF technology that are likely to occurr over the next 5 years. I also believe the performance figures you say will be required to autofocus on subject matter is exagerated. Hang around for another 5 years and we will both see who was right.
 
Cedarhill said:
I have seen some of the things you like to photograph and the subject matter is definitely demanding. Unfortunately for you, this type of extreme motion photography is nowhere near typical. What drives the market is the needs of the average shooter and it won't be long before those needs are better served by an electronic viewfinder.
Click to expand...
As I posted before, I use the capabilities of an OVF/PDAF system for shooting my kids too. Do you consider shooting your kids playing at the park an unusual situation?









--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Cedarhill said:
I do believe you are grossly underestimating the advances in EVF technology that are likely to occurr over the next 5 years. I also believe the performance figures you say will be required to autofocus on subject matter is exagerated. Hang around for another 5 years and we will both see who was right.
Click to expand...
Already have. Don't forget to look at the date on the post below:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=1456578

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Mark Smith said:
Barrie Davis said:
ZorSy said:
Barrie Davis said:
Do the TV cameras used for broadcast not have electronic viewfinders....[?]

.... [well, I doubt very much they have optical ones... (shrugs) ;-)]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mark Smith145430 said:
they do not have the shutter button, either....(in particular the studio ones, it's all on the control panel). ....and has nothing to do with the OP
Click to expand...
Oh! So it is shutters that are a problem [?] How does that happen, exactly?
Click to expand...
Its like this; in your example of fast moving action being captured with a TV camera, the camera is making 24-30 exposures a second-that's how it captures action with ease-in other words they are different from stills cameras.
Click to expand...
Actually some stills cameras work that way... or hadn't you heard? Yes. They actually frame-store continuously to a rolling buffer, and then preserve the couple of seconds or so of running time BEFORE you pressed the button. :-)
Mark Smith145430 said:
With an EVF what you are looking at is history, so when you see it its already gone, you press the shutter and the camera takes the image just after the one you saw.
Click to expand...
Mark Smith145430 said:
So TV/Video is a different ball-game as they have realtime shutters that record sequential exposures.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... it seems to me you didn't think that answer through, did you?

You haven't actually explained why a NON-realtime viewfinder presentation would make a practical difference... I mean, why would it (even if it were true!)?

With any camera you press the button at the moment you see the action in the viewfinder that you wanna record, same with electronic as with an optical viewfinder. What does it matter if what you see doesn't happen to synchronise with the events in the world outside/of the camera, it is the viewfinder image that is going to be recorded, isn't it....?

... and it could be argued that that is MORE true of an EVF than an OVF, because there isn't a mirror to get out of the way before shooting can initiate.

In fact, TV camera's EVFs are in full synchrony with the real world. If they were not, they'd never be able to stay on high speed action, like motor sport etc.
--
Regards,
Baz

Well, I'll see your Cher, and your Streisand... and I'll raise you an Alice Babs!
 
ljfinger said:
nikclick said:
ljfinger said:
nikclick said:
Whilst there is a minute delay in seeing the image, I sincerely doubt that is the limiting factor for EVF cameras.
Click to expand...
This is an absolutely MASSIVE issue for me. It prevents me from getting the subjects into the frame.
Click to expand...
I doubt you have even tried. Have you shot action with a GH1?
Click to expand...
No. Does it's EVF update at 100fps or 500fps or is it 30fps like all the others I have shot with?
Click to expand...
No, it displays at 60FPS, which gives a 17 millisecond delay, which is not usually significant given human reaction times.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
I have:
Click to expand...
That's a slow-moving loosely-framed subject shot with a short focal length. Multiply the speed and focal length by ten and get only, say, four times farther away and try it again.
Click to expand...
Ok, when I'm next at a race track I will :-)
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
The camera is not the limiting aspect.
Click to expand...
On all the EVF cameras and camcorders I've used it is.
Click to expand...
The GH1 EVF is exceptional. It may not be for you, if you are needing every last millisecond of speed, but for most, it is better than good enough.
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
Lee Jay said:
The things that are currently holding back micro four thirds cameras for being DSLR beaters is slightly slower focus lock and less rapid continuous shooting.
Click to expand...
It's not slightly, and continuous shooting speed isn't an issue for me.
Click to expand...
Slower / slightly slower. Semantics, what are the figures?
Click to expand...
Try shooting a subject that is moving toward or away from the camera at 10-20 depths-of-field per second, and getting the subject in-focus.
Click to expand...
I agree that is hard (shooting fast trains, for example). The faster, the better. Pre-focus in manual is more sure footed.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30225435@N00/
 
nikclick said:
No, it displays at 60FPS, which gives a 17 millisecond delay, which is not usually significant given human reaction times.
Click to expand...
First of all, the frame rate does not specify the delay. You are assuming the A-D, processing and display time added together are zero, which they aren't. The total delay is:

Shutter period + A-to-D time + processing time + display time.

Human reaction time is not relevant. This isn't about getting a shot at a specified time, it's about tracking the subject in the viewfinder.
nikclick said:
nikclick said:
Try shooting a subject that is moving toward or away from the camera at 10-20 depths-of-field per second, and getting the subject in-focus.
Click to expand...
I agree that is hard (shooting fast trains, for example). The faster, the better. Pre-focus in manual is more sure footed.
Click to expand...
But you only get one shot, and you have to time that shot accurate to around 25-50ms with very little ability to predict because it's so hard to determine where the focal plane is when no subject is within it.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I miss the split screen focus viewfinder of my old Canon film cams. It was a no brainer to see whether you were focused or not when manually focusing. These old focus screens are too much to ask for now it seems even in the $1500 DSLRs today as a standard camera should-be-included 'option'.

~~~~~
Razr said:
Optical viewfinders will disappear when all us old fogies die off; not one day sooner.

Optical viewfinders allow for instant composition and shutter release coordination.

Whenever they get that stutter-step out of electronic viewfinders they might have a chance .

Until then, and as long as there are NFL & NBA games...and POLO, optical viewfinders have a place, at least with those people who shoot fast action and who also buy $8,999 SLRs.
Click to expand...
--
"Good fences make good neighbors"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV_041oYDjg&feature=related
 
Not, if enough people stop purchasing "cameras" without them. ;)
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

 
I don't consider that series an overly challenging subject to shoot. I expect it could be done fairly easily with the faster micro 4/3 cameras. I tried out an E-PL1 i hte store and the focus didn't seem sluggish at all. Your sample subject is certainly more typical than trying to shoot high performance RC airplanes in flight at close range.
 
ljfinger said:
Human reaction time is not relevant. This isn't about getting a shot at a specified time, it's about tracking the subject in the viewfinder.
Click to expand...
Ahhh . . . but it is relevant!

Even in an OVF, by the time you see something in the viewfinder and you press the shutter release, you've already missed it!

So with either OVF or EVF you have to anticipate the shot, so once you get good with either type of viewfinder, then there really is no difference.

Just two different methods of using the viewfinders . . .

--
J. D.
Colorado
  • Who says you need a DSLR to get the shot? (Olympus Tough 8000):
 
Cedarhill said:
I don't consider that series an overly challenging subject to shoot. I expect it could be done fairly easily with the faster micro 4/3 cameras.
Click to expand...
Well, it was at 150mm and f2.8 on full-frame so you'd need a 75mm f1.4 for that, and he was running so you'd need tracking autofocus that worked pretty fast with very shallow depth of field.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
MusicDoctorDJ said:
ljfinger said:
Human reaction time is not relevant. This isn't about getting a shot at a specified time, it's about tracking the subject in the viewfinder.
Click to expand...
Ahhh . . . but it is relevant!
Click to expand...
No, it's not relevant to tracking.
MusicDoctorDJ said:
Even in an OVF, by the time you see something in the viewfinder and you press the shutter release, you've already missed it!
Click to expand...
No, because I'm following it.

ISS was moving across the sky at around 5 degrees per second, and I had a field of view of less than 1/3 of a degree. Do you think I reacted to it in 0.06 seconds as it magically crossed my frame or do you think I was tracking it?



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
I have a 4 year old Panasonic FZ-8 with an EVF. There is no comparison between it and the EVF on the new Panasonic G1 or G2. If the same level of progress is achieved over the next 4 years, which I have no reason to doubt, then EVFs will finally become an adequate substirute for an OVF for most people. They will provide features for the tech savvy photographer that an OVF simply can't.

I suggest you start getting used to the idea that camera designs are changing because there is nothing you can do about it. You sound like the "film or nothing" guys from 10 years ago.
 
Cedarhill said:
I have a 4 year old Panasonic FZ-8 with an EVF. There is no comparison between it and the EVF on the new Panasonic G1 or G2.
Click to expand...
In what way? Are talking about size and resolution or viewfinder lag and focusing performance?
Cedarhill said:
If the same level of progress is achieved over the next 4 years, which I have no reason to doubt, then EVFs will finally become an adequate substirute for an OVF for most people. They will provide features for the tech savvy photographer that an OVF simply can't.
Click to expand...
So, you think I'm not tech savvy?
Cedarhill said:
I suggest you start getting used to the idea that camera designs are changing because there is nothing you can do about it. You sound like the "film or nothing" guys from 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
If an EVF is going to replace my SLRs, it needs to have a delay of 2ms, a frame rate commensurate with that, a power usage of 1W or less, a resolution of at least 1200x800, at least nine stops of dynamic range and be color-calibrated with a wide color gamut. Since even $3000 EVF's on $20,000 cameras don't meet those specs today, it's difficult to imagine them getting there in a few years.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Razr said:
Until then, and as long as there are NFL & NBA games...and POLO, optical viewfinders have a place, at least with those people who shoot fast action and who also buy $8,999 SLRs.
Click to expand...
Where are the $9000 dSLRs? Or did you mean $7,999 ($8000)? The d3x and 1Ds3 were $8000 when new.
 
Another reason for more people to start purchasing Leica cameras/gear, as I more recently did, and be done with it. :|

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


MusicDoctorDJ said:
BRJR said:
Not, if enough people stop purchasing "cameras" without them. ;)
Click to expand...
Problem is more and more people are learning to like the EVF every day, so your wish will not come true!

--
J. D.
Colorado

Click to expand...
 
ljfinger said:
MusicDoctorDJ said:
ljfinger said:
Human reaction time is not relevant. This isn't about getting a shot at a specified time, it's about tracking the subject in the viewfinder.
Click to expand...
Ahhh . . . but it is relevant!
Click to expand...
No, it's not relevant to tracking.
Lee Jay said:
Even in an OVF, by the time you see something in the viewfinder and you press the shutter release, you've already missed it!
Click to expand...
No, because I'm following it.

ISS was moving across the sky at around 5 degrees per second, and I had a field of view of less than 1/3 of a degree. Do you think I reacted to it in 0.06 seconds as it magically crossed my frame or do you think I was tracking it?
Click to expand...
You seem to always have an answer for everything!

Thats OK . . .

In the future when the rest of us are enjoying our future cameras with EVF's . . . you'll still be looking for that elusive camera with an OVF.

Enjoy!

--
J. D.
Colorado
 
. . . that the overwhelming majority of photographers - even advanced professionals - really have any interest in that capability? You posted some RC airplanes in flight some weeks ago. They were amazing if they were taken under the circumstances you described (which I do believe). The thing that struck me though was that you could have made a much better photo from most people's perspective if you had suspended the aircraft from a tree limb at the same atitude with fishing line and then photographed it from 10 feet away. What you are pursuing is a technical challenge of an extreme nature. I think your accomplishments are amazing but neither I, nor very many other people I suspect, are interested in the same type of thing.
 
Cedarhill said:
. . . that the overwhelming majority of photographers - even advanced professionals - really have any interest in that capability?
Click to expand...
Following moving subjects in the viewfinder? Like, kids, runners, cars, planes, birds, etc.?

This guy thinks I'm waiting for something to appear in the viewfinder and then reacting to that and shooting it. WRONG!
Cedarhill said:
The thing that struck me though was that you could have made a much better photo from most people's perspective if you had suspended the aircraft from a tree limb at the same atitude with fishing line and then photographed it from 10 feet away.
Click to expand...
You think?











--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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