the purpose of a viewfinder is to help you compose the scene - the EVF have the ability to show you how the picture will be - it is two different things
I am sure many would agree with you, but your observation (or opinion) does not necessarily apply to everyone. For instance, I shoot RAW most of the time, I use the in-camera JPEG as a reference only. As a matter of fact, my settings on the Styles (brightness/saturation/etc.) are not targeted at the most desirable IQ in JPEG, instead my settings are optimized to have the histogram (which is JPEG based) reflects what's on my RAW images. I can assure you my RAW after PP don't usually like what's on the in-camera JPEG.
Howard, I am glad to see that you share my observation. At this time based on what I have read so far I still prefer OVF (on an A900/A850 class body
) but I can see if the A77 makes a major wave (and I hope it does); other manufacturer will follow suit, and hopefully we will see better and better EVF in the future. Whether OVF will go away completely in the near future is a different question; I don't think anyone has the answer, including Sony engineers and their marketing people.It it lags even a millisecond it will be slower than the speed that photons go through OVF without having to be changed.
Clear you don't know on this.
Note they said that without actually trying to take a photograph with it. Pretty picture, but function is what counts, and it lags in function. Not liveview.
I believe that Nikon does still offer one SLR model for film, for those customers who still want it. As long as it sells still they probably will continue.
EVF seems to be what people want. Just read the responses and reviews and open your mind. Stop fabricating excuses. What lag the A77 EVF may have it more than makes up for it in response time. But you don't want to listen to anything other than your same broken record over and over. Sony is not forcing anything on you with a gun to your head. If another brand is giving their customers what they want then you should join them. Easy as that. And I will agree that Sony is making the camera easier to use for "lower level" shooters. So what? Human progress dictates that things are made easier to use just like sports cars are now easier to drve. Call them the p&s users all you want.
I'm a raw only shooter in M mode, and the live histogram and focus peaking makes it all worth it to me.I am sure many would agree with you, but your observation (or opinion) does not necessarily apply to everyone. For instance, I shoot RAW most of the time, I use the in-camera JPEG as a reference only. As a matter of fact, my settings on the Styles (brightness/saturation/etc.) are not targeted at the most desirable IQ in JPEG, instead my settings are optimized to have the histogram (which is JPEG based) reflects what's on my RAW images. I can assure you my RAW after PP don't usually like what's on the in-camera JPEG.
So you see, even though the EVF's showing how the camera "sees" is a great feature for many, still it's not for everyone.
I want everyone to bookmark this statement from Walt to remind themselves why his is such a polarizing voice around here. Why have autofocus or auto metering? Everyone here must be a lower level shooter.
I guess my point is that, in response to Goetz48's post, he/she claims that the purpose of the viewfinder is to show how the pic. will look like, but the image you will see in the EVF is that of the in-camera JPEG, which is not what my final image will look like since I shoot RAW. But I would agree on that live histogram is definitely something very nice to have. I have used Canon point-and-shoot hacked with CHDK in the past so I know what you are talking about.I'm a raw only shooter in M mode, and the live histogram and focus peaking makes it all worth it to me.I am sure many would agree with you, but your observation (or opinion) does not necessarily apply to everyone. For instance, I shoot RAW most of the time, I use the in-camera JPEG as a reference only. As a matter of fact, my settings on the Styles (brightness/saturation/etc.) are not targeted at the most desirable IQ in JPEG, instead my settings are optimized to have the histogram (which is JPEG based) reflects what's on my RAW images. I can assure you my RAW after PP don't usually like what's on the in-camera JPEG.
So you see, even though the EVF's showing how the camera "sees" is a great feature for many, still it's not for everyone.
According to Walt, you are a low level shooter. If you are going to use M mode, you should know what your results will be without any aids. Might as well use auto. Next.I'm a raw only shooter in M mode, and the live histogram and focus peaking makes it all worth it to me.I am sure many would agree with you, but your observation (or opinion) does not necessarily apply to everyone. For instance, I shoot RAW most of the time, I use the in-camera JPEG as a reference only. As a matter of fact, my settings on the Styles (brightness/saturation/etc.) are not targeted at the most desirable IQ in JPEG, instead my settings are optimized to have the histogram (which is JPEG based) reflects what's on my RAW images. I can assure you my RAW after PP don't usually like what's on the in-camera JPEG.
So you see, even though the EVF's showing how the camera "sees" is a great feature for many, still it's not for everyone.
how do you know? or, more correctly, how do you know the lag is noticeable? or are you just guessing or, in your own words , lying?
--
oh, please, let's not go down that road again. your previous arguments on that were all blown clean out of the water. we're not talking about actual lag - it's acknowledged by everyone that an evf is slower than an ovf. what we're talking about is noticeable lag - noticeable to the human eye/brain. your refusal to accept that the speed of light is a red herring simply demonstrates that you will use any argument, regardless how nonsensical, to demerit evf. your problem is that no matter how good the oled is, no matter how noticeable the lag is (or is not) you have backed yourself into a corner with your fud and there is no way out for you
--
So, you think none of the reviews we've seen which praise the evf were made by people taking pictures, just passively looking through the VF? And that none of these reviewers tried to take a shot with the camera? We could have a rational discussion about htis, but not when you invent total fabrications.
How many pictures you have taken with A77 ?
Please note I am not blindly denying the benefits of EVF; but just want to point out that your view of EVF giving the photographer what the image "seen" by the camera doesn't work for me, because the "LiveView" in EVF shows the in-camera JPEG, not RAW, and that's a fact , not a matter of preference. On the other hand, the choice between JPEG and RAW is a preference, but at this time I choose RAW over EVF (for I will have to shoot JPEG in order to get what you have suggested the EVF has to offer: what-you-see-is-what-you-get).
