I prefer the EVF. While I spent years using OVFs with film cameras, my first digital camera was a Sony f717 with EVF. I really learned to like it. Then I moved to the Sony a550. I had problems with the OVF because of its placement on the camera made it difficult to use since I ware glasses. That is why I purchased the a77 and not the a580. The EVF on the a77 is a natural to me.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EVF vs. Penta-Prism OVF? If the a77....
- Thread starter olynik969
- Start date
I had an a55 (really nice camera by the way), but was just unable to get fully comfortable with the EVF. Not a criticism of the camera....
I look forward to trying out the a65/a77, as everyone seems to described it's EVF as being on a whole new positive level. To me the a77 just seems like a fantastic body...
--
Bob (formerly bobmax)
I look forward to trying out the a65/a77, as everyone seems to described it's EVF as being on a whole new positive level. To me the a77 just seems like a fantastic body...
--
Bob (formerly bobmax)
EVF hands down....
i hate mirrors i hated it on the older cams..i hate it on my A580 ...its dull and with no Liveview...and since i already know all the settings i choose b4 hand...i think all the time why do i actually need it ....i use spot focus anyway so if i hear the focus chirp with the settings i chose thats about it ...there is no more useful information on the OVF for me...
unlike the EVF which is live...very much alive ..live view and colors that show u exactly how the shot would come out...that tell us less Pro photographers if our composition is good or is it lacking.
one that u can see in the darkness or really low light like its bright day .
mirror is just a mirror....if u want a HUD Like something display like fighters pilots it will :
A. cost u a huge sum compared to ur comparable EVF
B.still wont give u any live view which is a deal breaker for me .
i hate mirrors i hated it on the older cams..i hate it on my A580 ...its dull and with no Liveview...and since i already know all the settings i choose b4 hand...i think all the time why do i actually need it ....i use spot focus anyway so if i hear the focus chirp with the settings i chose thats about it ...there is no more useful information on the OVF for me...
unlike the EVF which is live...very much alive ..live view and colors that show u exactly how the shot would come out...that tell us less Pro photographers if our composition is good or is it lacking.
one that u can see in the darkness or really low light like its bright day .
mirror is just a mirror....if u want a HUD Like something display like fighters pilots it will :
A. cost u a huge sum compared to ur comparable EVF
B.still wont give u any live view which is a deal breaker for me .
Dickerson
Active member
I am currently weighing-up the pros and cons of and optical (Nikon D90) and Electronic (Sony A55) viewfinder cameras. Trying to make a decision as to which 'system' to concentrate on.
I came to DSLR about a year ago when I bought the Sony A55 and to be honest I was very happy with the EVF and the rest of the A55. What I became less happy about was the selection of lenses that were available. In a spontaneous(ish) laps I bought the Nikon on the e-bay.
Now my choice is not all about the EVF/OVF question, lens selection, features and of course image quality all figure. I will limit my comments to this EVF/OVF question though.
The Sony and Nikon are roughly equal in terms of size and coverage. although the figures give the edge to the Sony in use they look about the same to me. The basic question for me comes down to ' through the viewfinder do I want to view the scene as the eye sees it or as the camera sees it'. There are benefits to both ways of viewing. On the Sony I really like the live-view through the viewfinder, indeed the Nikon OVF gave a fabulously clear view of the scene compared to the Sony but the lack of any visual exposure feedback was really frustrating. It has taken some practice with the Nikon to get exposure in tricky lighting situations any where as near as well judged as the Sony. Even so I regularly have to bracket with the Nikon just to make sure I have a properly exposed picture (in tricky lighting). Overall, although I prefer framing using the OVF, the ability to live-view the exposure gives the edge to the Sony. Other advantages of the EVF are in overlay of camera info on to the EVF image and photo review through the viewfinder. Hence my vote comes down on the side of the EVF. I did try a A77 in a shop and did not think it was that much better than the A55.
Despite what I said about my preference for the EVF of the Sony, I actually really like the Nikon D90 and am thinking a Nikon D7000 may well be my next up-grade. Doh maybe not decisions decisions decisions.
I hope this helps.
TERRY
Terry
I came to DSLR about a year ago when I bought the Sony A55 and to be honest I was very happy with the EVF and the rest of the A55. What I became less happy about was the selection of lenses that were available. In a spontaneous(ish) laps I bought the Nikon on the e-bay.
Now my choice is not all about the EVF/OVF question, lens selection, features and of course image quality all figure. I will limit my comments to this EVF/OVF question though.
The Sony and Nikon are roughly equal in terms of size and coverage. although the figures give the edge to the Sony in use they look about the same to me. The basic question for me comes down to ' through the viewfinder do I want to view the scene as the eye sees it or as the camera sees it'. There are benefits to both ways of viewing. On the Sony I really like the live-view through the viewfinder, indeed the Nikon OVF gave a fabulously clear view of the scene compared to the Sony but the lack of any visual exposure feedback was really frustrating. It has taken some practice with the Nikon to get exposure in tricky lighting situations any where as near as well judged as the Sony. Even so I regularly have to bracket with the Nikon just to make sure I have a properly exposed picture (in tricky lighting). Overall, although I prefer framing using the OVF, the ability to live-view the exposure gives the edge to the Sony. Other advantages of the EVF are in overlay of camera info on to the EVF image and photo review through the viewfinder. Hence my vote comes down on the side of the EVF. I did try a A77 in a shop and did not think it was that much better than the A55.
Despite what I said about my preference for the EVF of the Sony, I actually really like the Nikon D90 and am thinking a Nikon D7000 may well be my next up-grade. Doh maybe not decisions decisions decisions.
I hope this helps.
TERRY
--
Terry
chlamchowder
Senior Member
Haha, not really, but even though I can't see 16 mp worth of detail, the availability of that detail makes the image look much more real, and makes it easy to judge focus.You can pick up detail worth 16 million pixels through that viewfinder? You must have hawk vision....
That's true - that's why there's a live view option.
My APS-C would be largely for sports and the EVF simply doesn't do live view at fast frame rates so I'd hv to opt for the OVF.
Brgds
El Profe
Senior Member
Regarding... "I did try a A77 in a shop and did not think it was that much better than the A55"
I used to have an A55 and gave it away because I did not like its EVF. And I also tried the A77 and I did notice that it is much better. I like the A77 ergonomics and controls but not its 24MP's sensor JPG performance, specially at high ISO. If next year or so Sony decides to sell a 16MP's version of the A77, or the A65, I buy one. But not an A65 or an A77 with a 24MP's sensor.
I used to have an A55 and gave it away because I did not like its EVF. And I also tried the A77 and I did notice that it is much better. I like the A77 ergonomics and controls but not its 24MP's sensor JPG performance, specially at high ISO. If next year or so Sony decides to sell a 16MP's version of the A77, or the A65, I buy one. But not an A65 or an A77 with a 24MP's sensor.
OldClicker
Senior Member
NEX with the adapter gives you mirrorless and SLT. - TF
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
No contest, OVF allows more types of photography. Does not even have to be all that good a OVF to beat the EVF in this. Though I prefer high quality Pentaprism OVF. Which most EVF champions have never really used extensively.
No amount of info clutter in the EVF makes up for that, or is necessary.
Walt
Ben Ramsey
Active member
It is a difficult question you ask. I would compare the specs mainly to see what kind of battery life each offers. At this point, I would assume the evf would allow about half the shots per charge. I don't really care about fps once it is over 5 or af in video, but that is just a personal opinion. Then I would at look at sample images and comparisons to see what kind of an effect the slt mirror actually has at varying iso. Then I would try to do a hands on comparison of the two to compare the viewfinders as well as the general feel. After these things I would have a better idea of the actual differences and be able to make an informed decision based upon actual information and decide based on my personal and very individual requirements. In the end I would probably end up with the ovf due solely to battery life. I take a considerable number of trips to places where electricity is not readily available need all the shots per charge I can get. Everyone has different needs though.
The_Wicker_Man
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,521
- Reaction score
- 589
utter b@ll@cks (but what else should we expect from someone so bitterly prejudiced) - an ovf may make some very esoteric types of photography easier than it is with an evf. but there's no doubt that an evf also makes certain (different) types of photography much easier than with an ovf. but neither allows for more types than the other
--
i know what i know, which is a fraction of what i don't
chlamchowder
Senior Member
Can you both give examples? I've tried both OVF and EVF cameras, and I think an OVF provides advantages for much more than some "esoteric" types of photography. For example, the instant update even in continuous mode makes OVFs more suitable for action, and I would definitely prefer an OVF during any extended outing simply because I never have to worry about the battery.
And since pretty much all modern DSLRs feature live view, I feel that the need for an EVF is very small indeed because you can get all the benefits of an electronic preview via the rear screen. I can think of very few types of photograhy in which I would sacrifice the optical preview for a live view only camera, and I would not be willing to make that sacrifice.
If I really needed an EVF, I would much prefer a clip on EVF for an OVF DSLR than sacrificing the option of using an optical preview.
Walt, you too have never used an EVF extensively. So stop being arrogant. By the way, if you prefer high quality pentaprism, you would have used the a900 one. The OVF on the a700 is not that great. The canon 7D, nikon D300, D300s and D7000 have a better OVF than the a700. Even the EVF of the a33/a55 and a77 are way better than the OVF of the a700.
--
Madness is when you start talking about the a77 EVF lag but you've never used the camera once.
Very esoteric such as the type of photography that is done at a higher level than a pro.
--
Madness is when you start talking about the a77 EVF lag but you've never used the camera once.
C
cgarrard
Guest
The K5, better than the A700 too and 100% view.
With this magnifier, the view is larger than the A900's OVF and I have more information displayed in it too. Very bright, very clear, very large and 100% composition. I'd take this over an EVF most of the time, including the new Sony EVF.
http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/
"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude; nothing can help the man with wrong one."
-Thomas Jefferson
With this magnifier, the view is larger than the A900's OVF and I have more information displayed in it too. Very bright, very clear, very large and 100% composition. I'd take this over an EVF most of the time, including the new Sony EVF.
http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/
"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude; nothing can help the man with wrong one."
-Thomas Jefferson
The_Wicker_Man
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,521
- Reaction score
- 589
first of all, battery life is a completely separate discussion point
secondly, you're confusing the point about suitability. there's no doubt that an ovf has certain advantages over an evf - perhaps more than an evf has over an ovf (that will depend on the individual photographer's position in the debate). but being "less suitable" is not the same as ruling out a particular type of photography - as walt implies. i've seen a host of superb action shots from the a77, as well as some outstanding low-light macro work - far better than anything i've seen on a certain flickr page
before providing examples, i'd like walt to suggest just one type of photography that can be done with an ovf and cannot with an evf (answers such as "work it out for yourself" will not be accepted)
--
i know what i know, which is a fraction of what i don't
I did not know about the Pentax as Ihave never used them.The K5, better than the A700 too and 100% view.
With this magnifier, the view is larger than the A900's OVF and I have more information displayed in it too. Very bright, very clear, very large and 100% composition. I'd take this over an EVF most of the time, including the new Sony EVF.
http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/
"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude; nothing can help the man with wrong one."
-Thomas Jefferson
--
Madness is when you start talking about the a77 EVF lag but you've never used the camera once.
Very simple; Walt is speciallized in photography that is done at a higher level than a pro as he had mentioned proudly in the past. Now what is it exactly, only him knows.
--
Madness is when you start talking about the a77 EVF lag but you've never used the camera once.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum