Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?

Barrie Davis said:

Then, in my not so humble opinion, you need your coping mechanism exerted a bit more. It isn't necessary to see that stuff through a viewfnder, it is only necessary for it to appear in the image.

Click to expand...

I think you miss the point I don't need to "cope" I just use an optical viewfinder this is why it's my "weapon of choice" for landscape work.

Barrie Davis said:

If you need to see it before shooting, then look over the camera .... it is a landscape for crying out loud, and presuambly something of what was visible in that landscape was what encouraged you to pick bring the camera up to you eye in the first place.... (shrugs)

Click to expand...

Have you ever actually done scenic/landscape work? Look over the VF come on now. I need to see the scene as my eyes see it, not a pre processed electronic image

Shove a HD camcorder to your HD TV point it outside and look at the TV screen..then look outside with your eyes. Which looks better? End of debate ;-)

Barrie Davis said:

Conclusion: The only real necessities in a viewfinding device is that it should be clear enough to see the main picture elements, and to show the LIMITS of the frame with full accuracy. EVF copes with the former, and is supreme at the latter.
--

Click to expand...

To see the main picture elements? EVF's make life twice as hard as using an optical viewfinder esp for work such as scenic and portraits where subtle details cannot be seen clearly on the EVF. The slight lag as well is critical for people shots too.

EVF's will not be warmly welcomed by serious shooters for this type of shooting

If it's not broke don't fix it OVF works and very well in most cases. If you want your overlays, histograms and WB stuff then just put your DSLR into live view

Best of both worlds at your fingertips. But evidently that's not good enough for some the live view and OVF argument is a strong one and it's mostly wipes out the demand for a full time EVF

Strangely when I take my film cameras out I manage to get along just fine. Some folks need to take the stabilisers off you'll never learn to cycle until you do ;-)

PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

Conclusion: The only real necessities in a viewfinding device is that it should be clear enough to see the main picture elements, and to show the LIMITS of the frame with full accuracy. EVF copes with the former, and is supreme at the latter.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PerL said:

..is what we should accept, in yours, as you said, not so humble opinion.

Click to expand...

You accept what you like, bearing in mind that.....

It isn't as if the TYPICAL optical finder on an APS sensored camera is anything to write home about. Their OVF viewfinders are already more than compromised. APS OVFs are utter rubbish compared with the viewfinder of, say, my "humble" Nikkormat FTn of 40 years ago.

Modern APS OVFs are dim, small, and don't show DoF properly.

EDIT: Now, I could cope with all that, but they don't show where the edges of the picture come, either.... and that is MY idea of a deal breaker as far as the spurious superiority of the OVF is concerned..
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Barrie Davis wrote:

Have you ever actually done scenic/landscape work? Look over the VF come on now. I need to see the scene as my eyes see it, not a pre processed electronic image.

Click to expand...

Well, looking over the camera IS the view as your eye sees it, isn't it? That was the point.

Moreover, it can be argued that your eye's view is irrelevant, as the camera's view which is the one recorded.... and the camera never sees anything the same as the eye.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Barrie Davis said:

Well, looking over the camera IS the view as your eye sees it, isn't it? That was the point.

Moreover, it can be argued that your eye's view is irrelevant, as the camera's view which is the one recorded.... and the camera never sees anything the same as the eye.
--

Click to expand...

The EVF can never see the final image as you want it. That is down to the photographer and their direction. Pre visualisation cannot be overcome with an EVF it is an essential part of photography.

The OVF allows me to see clearly, without any interference or pre processing applied to the image. It is the blank canvas that I require for the work I do.

The EVF won't see the final image either so it's not the on hit wonder some make it out to be. Shoot raw? Well good luck there are you're not seeing things accurately either.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Barrie Davis said:

Well, looking over the camera IS the view as your eye sees it, isn't it? That was the point.

Moreover, it can be argued that your eye's view is irrelevant, as the camera's view which is the one recorded.... and the camera never sees anything the same as the eye.
--

Click to expand...

The EVF can never see the final image as you want it.

Click to expand...

[sigh] I didn't say it did. Anyway, I'm bored now. This argument has been flogged to death.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Since no one yet has figured out how to get the image from the sensor to your eye at the speed of light, there is still a lag in even the best EVF.

Since they have not yet come up with a way to make that LAG consistent in duration, you cant "anticipate" the lag into your decision when to operate the shutter. (the duration of the lag gets longer as light levels drop, then shorter again if light levels come up).

If you are shooting what I call "timing specific" shots, an EVF comes close to useless.

I use and Love (yes I said LOVE) EVFs on several of my cameras, for shooting portraits, landscapes, almost everything NOT timing specific.

Until they can get that image from the sensor, through the circuits, and into your eye, at a VERY short delay, and the delay doesnt change according to light levels, the EVF will not REPLACE the OVF.

The EVF will remain as it is, a good tool for most things, but useless for other things.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

Oh come on! Haven't you tried comparing the two types of viewfinders yourself? If after trying both, and you still can't decide for yourself which one performs better for you, then you're not doing any photography.

--
If life was fair it would be too boring because...

• Everybody would have the same gender
• Everybody would look the same
• There would be no plants and animals (it would be unfair to them having lower life forms).

PerL said:

Actually, the DR of the EVFs is not the same as the sensor. You can easily get fooled and overcompensate if you go by what you see in the EVF for instance in a snow scene or with backlight.

Click to expand...

You guys are funny. Really trying to grasp at straws. Ultimately, looking at an EVF will be no different than looking at a high quality computer monitor. No one complains about using computer monitors to review images, do they? You also forget that even if you're really anal about being "fooled or overcompensate if you go by what you see in the EVF", you forget that EVF's have other tools to help you, like Live Histograms . Are you going to tell us that "you can easily get fooled and overcompensate" if we use a histogram? You also forget that any indications of exposure given by an EVF-- either by exposure preview or by Live Histogram or by both combined-- is still better that the zero exposure indication given by an OVF! And people get fooled or overcompensate or undercompensate with OVF's all the time! So basically, your argument is that some level of exposure feedback (given by an EVF) is worse than having zero level of exposure feedback (given by an OVF). Yeah, that makes sense!

T3 said:

PerL said:

Actually, the DR of the EVFs is not the same as the sensor. You can easily get fooled and overcompensate if you go by what you see in the EVF for instance in a snow scene or with backlight.

Click to expand...

You guys are funny. Really trying to grasp at straws. Ultimately, looking at an EVF will be no different than looking at a high quality computer monitor. No one complains about using computer monitors to review images, do they? You also forget that even if you're really anal about being "fooled or overcompensate if you go by what you see in the EVF", you forget that EVF's have other tools to help you, like Live Histograms . Are you going to tell us that "you can easily get fooled and overcompensate" if we use a histogram? You also forget that any indications of exposure given by an EVF-- either by exposure preview or by Live Histogram or by both combined-- is still better that the zero exposure indication given by an OVF! And people get fooled or overcompensate or undercompensate with OVF's all the time! So basically, your argument is that some level of exposure feedback (given by an EVF) is worse than having zero level of exposure feedback (given by an OVF). Yeah, that makes sense!

Click to expand...

If there is time to look at a histogram in the viewfinder, there is time to look at the LCD on the back. I am talking about when you work quickly.

I am not grasping at straws, I just relate to experiences with EVFs. There are many instances where things that sounds good in theory dont work that well in reality.

Shooting with a G2H and a D300 at the same time I found it harder to judge exposure with the G2H because the exposure change in the viewfinder is confusing to the eye when it appears darker than the real scene.

I have also experienced that when you shoot in backlight it is easy to overcompensate because the DR of the EVF is much smaller than that of the sensor. It happend to me when I shot a marathon race when the winner passed by. Stupid to rely on the EVF was my first thought.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

PerL said:

If there is time to look at a histogram in the viewfinder, there is time to look at the LCD on the back. I am talking about when you work quickly.

Click to expand...

LOLOL. Are you serious? Then why bother having any information in the viewfinder at all? LOLOLOL!!!! If camera manufacturers decided to remove all the information that is currently in the viewfinder, with the rationalization being that "there is time to look at this information elsewhere on the camera...if you work quickly"...I can guarantee you that there would be a massive uproar of protest from photographers everywhere!!!

BTW, your idea of looking at the back LCD to see the histogram would either entail shooting the scene, then reviewing the scene on the rear LCD, then re-shooting the scene after you've made adjustments; or it would entail switching to Live View mode just to see the Live Histogram, then switching back to OVF mode. Both these situations are a lot more cumbersome and time consuming than just being able to see a Live Histogram right there in the viewfinder without ever having to remove your eye from the viewfinder!!! The whole point of putting info in the viewfinder is that you dont have to remove your eye from the viewfinder! That's far less interruption to your shooting flow.

PerL said:

I am not grasping at straws, I just relate to experiences with EVFs. There are many instances where things that sounds good in theory dont work that well in reality.

Shooting with a G2H and a D300 at the same time I found it harder to judge exposure with the G2H because the exposure change in the viewfinder is confusing to the eye when it appears darker than the real scene.

Click to expand...

Wow, then that's a mental issue that is unique to you, because for everyone else, it's simply a matter of "Hmm, it looks dark, so I'm going to add a bit of positive exposure compensation until it looks right."

In other words, if the viewfinder "appears darker than the real scene", then that means the camera is going to capture an image darker than the real scene!!! Wow, so confusing, right?!?

PerL said:

I have also experienced that when you shoot in backlight it is easy to overcompensate because the DR of the EVF is much smaller than that of the sensor. It happend to me when I shot a marathon race when the winner passed by. Stupid to rely on the EVF was my first thought.

Click to expand...

LOLOL. The reality is the exposure feedback of an EVF is always going to be more informative than having zero exposure feedback of an OVF. People overcompensate, undercompensate, or fail to compensate at all, when shooting with an OVF all time time because of this lack of feedback! The only difference is that they don't realize it until after they've taken the shot and reviewed it, because only then are they getting any visual feedback on their exposure!!! An EVF gives you visual feedback on your exposure as you're framing the scene, before you take the shot, not after!

Think of it this way: with an OVF, you're "stupid to rely" exclusively on your camera's exposure metering (for example, aperture priority metering), whereas with an EVF you can use the camera's exposure metering while simultaneously using the EVF's visual feedback as a cross-check or verification that the exposure that the metering system is giving you is what you really want to go with. In other words, an EVF gives you one more level of information that you can use. Obviously, in both situations you still have to use your brain, but having that live visual feedback allows you to make pre-emptive corrections, rather than just post-shot corrections.

The other thing that many skip over is the fact the with EVF's you can choose whether to have the EVF gain up or down for low light shooting . . . or to show you what the image will look like at the current selected shutter and aperture settings.

Either is a user selectable setting . . .

Not something that you are stuck with when using an EVF.

--



Denver, Colorado

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Barrie Davis said:

... I think you can probably cope with the wierdness of auto-gain in an EVF.
--

Click to expand...

You might but for detailed work such as landscapes I can't cope with the lack of details and the DR issues that the VF has.

Click to expand...

The "detail" argument is complete non-sense. As EVF's are increasing in resolution, they show plenty of detail! It's like the Retina Diplay of an iPhone 4: the level of resolution begins to meet or exceed the resolving capability of the human eye at a given distance. Eventually, it'll be no different than looking at a high def flat screen television-- ie, tons of resolution and detail!

Furthermore, since the size of the EVF is not tied to the size of the sensor, you can have an EVF the size of 35mm full frame, even though your sensor is APS-C or smaller. Technically, a manufacturer could make the EVF screen any size they wanted to, because it's not limited to the size of the sensor format like optical viewfinders are. Heck, you could have a medium format-sized EVF screen! So that means that you could have a very detailed high definition EVF that is also very large , allowing you to see levels of detail that far surpass what you would get from light bouncing off a small mirror, into a small prism, onto a piece of ground glass! I can assure you that there would be a lot of landscape photographers who would gladly have that option, rather than the ground glass optical viewfinders they are currently squinting at.

As for DR, that's a red herring, too. I've shot in very contrasty conditions, and the visual feedback regarding limitations in DR has enabled me to dial in a better exposure than having no DR feedback from an OVF. Furthermore, there's no reason why an EVF couldn't some day reflect very accurately the DR range what your sensor can capture in JPEG mode, or show what your sensor can capture in RAW mode. That's the beauty of an EVF. It can be made to truly depict what the sensor can capture. Imagine shooting a camera in RAW mode, with the EVF setting at "full highlight recovery mode", allowing you to see in the EVF exactly what the captured DR of a RAW shot would actually have. Meanwhile, an OVF has "zero" connection with or feedback from the sensor at all.

I like what I see thru my DSLR!
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida

T3 said:

Furthermore, since the size of the EVF is not tied to the size of the sensor, you can have an EVF the size of 35mm full frame, even though your sensor is APS-C or smaller. Technically, a manufacturer could make the EVF screen any size they wanted to, because it's not limited to the size of the sensor format like optical viewfinders are. Heck, you could have a medium format-sized EVF screen! So that means that you could have a very detailed high definition EVF that is also very large , allowing you to see levels of detail that far surpass what you would get from light bouncing off a small mirror, into a small prism, onto a piece of ground glass! I can assure you that there would be a lot of landscape photographers who would gladly have that option, rather than the ground glass optical viewfinders they are currently squinting at.

Click to expand...

Imagine in the future being able to buy a modular EVF camera where the viewfinder was a module that you could detach. You would be able to buy an EVF module with a much larger and higher resolution EVF in it, for highly detailed work like landscape photography. Sure, such an EVF module would be more expensive than the standard EVF module, but it would be no different than buying an expensive wide angle lens for landscape photography. Such an EVF module would be a product that would cater to landscape and studio photographers. Or maybe you have poor eyesight, so you need a very big viewfinder image. Or maybe you're just someone who likes really, really big viewfinders.

It would be kind of like the old Nikon F3, which had a detachable viewfinder so you could add different viewfinders (for example, they had a waist-level viewfinder module). Now with EVF's, we'd be bringing back the detachable viewfinder, but taking it to a whole new level that wasn't possible with optical viewfinders!



So as you can see, your resolution argument against EVF's is a losing argument. It's like film photographers arguing in the earlier days of digital photography that digital didn't have enough resolution for detailed work! Well, we can see how that argument has been laid to waste!

T3 said:

PerL said:

If there is time to look at a histogram in the viewfinder, there is time to look at the LCD on the back. I am talking about when you work quickly.

Click to expand...

LOLOL. Are you serious? Then why bother having any information in the viewfinder at all? LOLOLOL!!!! If camera manufacturers decided to remove all the information that is currently in the viewfinder, with the rationalization being that "there is time to look at this information elsewhere on the camera...if you work quickly"...I can guarantee you that there would be a massive uproar of protest from photographers everywhere!!!

Click to expand...

Please, could you cut down on the LOLOLs and the overuse of exclamation marks? It makes a somewhat childish impression on me and probably many others.

What I am basically saying is that the limited DR of the EVF vs the sensors DR can mislead you if you really trust that the EVF is WYSIWYG

T3 said:

BTW, your idea of looking at the back LCD to see the histogram would either entail shooting the scene, then reviewing the scene on the rear LCD, then re-shooting the scene after you've made adjustments; or it would entail switching to Live View mode just to see the Live Histogram, then switching back to OVF mode. Both these situations are a lot more cumbersome and time consuming than just being able to see a Live Histogram right there in the viewfinder without ever having to remove your eye from the viewfinder!!! The whole point of putting info in the viewfinder is that you dont have to remove your eye from the viewfinder! That's far less interruption to your shooting flow.

T3 said:

I am not grasping at straws, I just relate to experiences with EVFs. There are many instances where things that sounds good in theory dont work that well in reality.

Shooting with a G2H and a D300 at the same time I found it harder to judge exposure with the G2H because the exposure change in the viewfinder is confusing to the eye when it appears darker than the real scene.

Click to expand...

Wow, then that's a mental issue that is unique to you, because for everyone else, it's simply a matter of "Hmm, it looks dark, so I'm going to add a bit of positive exposure compensation until it looks right."

In other words, if the viewfinder "appears darker than the real scene", then that means the camera is going to capture an image darker than the real scene!!! Wow, so confusing, right?!?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is confusing to the eyes because it makes it hard to decide what the right amount of brightness should be. That the EVF so easily blows out highlights dont make it any easier. Sure you can use the histogram, but it is irritating. Have you ever shot with an EVF in a snow landscape? But that is just a minor point compared to many other disadvantages of EVFs.

T3 said:

T3 said:

I have also experienced that when you shoot in backlight it is easy to overcompensate because the DR of the EVF is much smaller than that of the sensor. It happend to me when I shot a marathon race when the winner passed by. Stupid to rely on the EVF was my first thought.

Click to expand...

LOLOL. The reality is the exposure feedback of an EVF is always going to be more informative than having zero exposure feedback of an OVF. People overcompensate, undercompensate, or fail to compensate at all, when shooting with an OVF all time time because of this lack of feedback! The only difference is that they don't realize it until after they've taken the shot and reviewed it, because only then are they getting any visual feedback on their exposure!!! An EVF gives you visual feedback on your exposure as you're framing the scene, before you take the shot, not after!

Think of it this way: with an OVF, you're "stupid to rely" exclusively on your camera's exposure metering (for example, aperture priority metering), whereas with an EVF you can use the camera's exposure metering while simultaneously using the EVF's visual feedback as a cross-check or verification that the exposure that the metering system is giving you is what you really want to go with. In other words, an EVF gives you one more level of information that you can use. Obviously, in both situations you still have to use your brain, but having that live visual feedback allows you to make pre-emptive corrections, rather than just post-shot corrections.

Click to expand...

Of course I know how to use the meter with my OVF camera. The problem was that I trusted the "WYSIWYG" with the EVF, But now I know better.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

PerL said:

What I am basically saying is that the limited DR of the EVF vs the sensors DR can mislead you if you really trust that the EVF is WYSIWYG

Click to expand...

PerL, it's just one more piece of information. You don't have to blindly trust anything. You still have to use your brain. But it's still giving you more valuable information than no feedback from an OVF. And at the very least, it's a reminder to check your exposure. There have been plenty of times in my career when I either had not changed my manual exposure settings to keep up with the changing lighting conditions, or my camera had accidentally been set to M when I wanted it to be at Av resulting in totally erroneous exposures...but I didn't realize this until after shots were taken. Having an EVF that was clearly and vividly showing me what these erroneous exposure were going to be would have prevented me from taking these shots at all! In the heat of shooting, mistakes in exposure happen, even if you're the most experienced of photographers! We're all human. So having an EVF that actually gives real-time exposure feedback is a very valuable and helpful tool.

PerL said:

Yes, it is confusing to the eyes because it makes it hard to decide what the right amount of brightness should be. That the EVF so easily blows out highlights dont make it any easier. Sure you can use the histogram, but it is irritating. Have you ever shot with an EVF in a snow landscape? But that is just a minor point compared to many other disadvantages of EVFs.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've shot with an EVF in all manner of conditions. It's amazing how people will just dig and dig and dig for reasons why they can't take good pictures. Believe it or not, people have been taking pictures of snow scenes with EVFs for years, especially if you count rear LCD and Live View LCD as a form of EVF.

PerL said:

Of course I know how to use the meter with my OVF camera. The problem was that I trusted the "WYSIWYG" with the EVF, But now I know better.

Click to expand...

Come on, PerL. You still have to use your brain sometimes . It's just that EVF gives you a visual feedback system that an OVF simply does not.

And BTW, as time progresses and technology progresses, EVF's will only get much closer and closer to being truer WYSIWYG to what the sensor captures...whereas with an OVF, it's impossible and hopeless.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

The EVF can never see the final image as you want it. That is down to the photographer and their direction. Pre visualisation cannot be overcome with an EVF it is an essential part of photography.

The OVF allows me to see clearly, without any interference or pre processing applied to the image. It is the blank canvas that I require for the work I do.

Click to expand...

In other words, optical finder shows the scene as it is, in real life. Electronic finder shows a horrible misrepresentation of it.

T3 said:

I think people who hate EVF will always hate EVF, no matter what.

Click to expand...

Yes. I have come to the same conclusion. There is no point in discussing the matter because their minds are closed. They denigrate every EVF with all the bad attributes they saw in the FIRST one they ever encountered, and, no matter how much improvement might take place, it is never enough for them.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

On the modern DSLRs I've handled, I rather have an EVF when it comes to manual focusing.

Modern DSLRs don't have any MF focusing aids and the ground glass is borderline useless, esp with fast glass/low dof shots and even worse with wide angles (can't tell anything)

EVF gives me the magnification option and its easier to see things snap in and out of focus

I don't do action shots, so the lag is not a big deal

I'll take something like the OVF of a Nikon F3 or an EVF

herebefore said:

If you are shooting what I call "timing specific" shots, an EVF comes close to useless.

Click to expand...

Not if you learn how to frame and shoot with both eyes open.

Once you've acquired this ability, and you can see not just what's happening in real-time but also what's happening outside of your frame, it will help you to more accurately anticipate things and to catch the right moment.