Reading mode: Light Dark

Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?

Go to last post
Barrie Davis said:
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.
--
Click to expand...
Hate is a big word.
Not hate but try:

Won't buy
Dislike intensely
Refuse to use

If I added I'd rather shoot and scan 35mm film than use an EVF would that convey the strength of feeling?

But, even with all that I want people to have a choice that is good for all. But take away my OVF and you will see a riot of epic proportions.

My message to EVF fans is enjoy them, but if OVF users have no choice in this that would be a disaster for them. And there will be stiff resistance from many users.
 
Which film are we talking about? Can you point to a proper study on this subject? Just asking because I read an article the other day stating that digital was indeed better in regards to dynamic range and resolution (for modern DSLR sensors).
T3 said:
Certainly, digital still hasn't matched the dynamic range of film or the highlight roll-off.
Click to expand...
--
Completely infatuated with the OM-G
 
T3 said:
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.
T3 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.
T3 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.
Click to expand...
Sure an EVF can give you a warning if something is very wrong with your settings, but how often does that happen today when we besides our basic skills have matrix metering, RAW for adjusting WB and very large DR?

A very small percentage, but for that extra layer of security you have to suffer a worse viewfinder experience every time you use the camera.

For my needs an EVF is a solution that is looking for a problem that is not there.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
PerL said:
A very small percentage, but for that extra layer of security you have to suffer a worse viewfinder experience every time you use the camera.

For my needs an EVF is a solution that is looking for a problem that is not there.
Click to expand...
Well said and spot on

Sadly T3 will continue this crusade for EVF's even trying to force them on users who just are "not interested"

EVF's for newbies isn't a very good argument yet T3 keeps pushing it
 
PerL said:
Sure an EVF can give you a warning if something is very wrong with your settings, but how often does that happen today when we besides our basic skills have matrix metering, RAW for adjusting WB and very large DR?
Click to expand...
Try fixing an image when you accidentally have a camera in manual mode resulting in an exposure that is three stops off. It happens. People think they are in Av mode, only to find that the camera was in M mode.

At any rate, any good photographer tries to get the best exposure possible. Besides, matrix metering isn't always successful. Furthermore, matrix metering doesn't do much for you if you're shooting manual. Plus, you can just as easily say, "What do we need histograms for, when we have matrix metering?" Well it's because matrix metering doesn't always give you the exposure you think is ideal or best. And even if you're the best photographer, with the most advanced metering system, you'll still be check your histograms and review your images to make sure your exposures are good...unfortunately, all this has to be done after the shot is taken with OVF cameras.
PerL said:
A very small percentage, but for that extra layer of security you have to suffer a worse viewfinder experience every time you use the camera.
Click to expand...
That's your negative bias. Today's latest EVF's are very good, and they only get better with every new generation. It's just like televisions. Today's HD flatscreens are stunning. Sometimes, it's as if they look better than real life, the image is so stunningly crisp! Eventually, EVF's will be just like that.

Also, the other added advantage of an EVF is that you can have a viewfinder screen size that is no longer determined by the size of the sensor format you're using. Imagine having a 35mm full frame-sized viewfinder, even though you're shooting with an APS-C or smaller sensor. Last I heard, people actually liked the size and look of 35mm full frame sensors! That's what an EVF allows you to have.
PerL said:
For my needs an EVF is a solution that is looking for a problem that is not there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but remember, you're only one person. Plus, you're a photographer from a different era. Today's photographers of this generation are growing up with different expectations. They want their viewfinders to do more than show an image of a scene reflected off a mirror. They want their viewfinders to have focus peaking, focus magnification, exposure preview, shoot video, etc.

It's just like music listeners of the past. In the past, the older generation would have been satisfied with carrying around a portable CD player to listen to one album. That might have been enough for the needs of the previous generation, but today's generation expect a lot more from their portable music players. Now, they want to be able to carry full music collections, create playlists, rank songs, etc.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
PerL said:
A very small percentage, but for that extra layer of security you have to suffer a worse viewfinder experience every time you use the camera.

For my needs an EVF is a solution that is looking for a problem that is not there.
Click to expand...
Well said and spot on

Sadly T3 will continue this crusade for EVF's even trying to force them on users who just are "not interested"

EVF's for newbies isn't a very good argument yet T3 keeps pushing it
Click to expand...
The rise of EVF's isn't going to happen based on anything I do or say. After all, people said the same thing about those who said that digital photography would eventually take over. People like yourself (heck, it might have even been you!) said, "they'll continue this crusade for digital cameras even trying to force them on users who just are not interested." Likewise, the same thing happened when people predicted that all DSLRs would end up getting video. And people who thought that video had no business being in a DSLR also said, "they'll continue this crusade for video in DSLRs even trying to force them on users who just are not interested." And yes, video was also called a feature for "newbies", and that is why they believed DSLRs would never get video. Well, we all know how things turned out, don't we? It's always the old guard who hates anything new or any change that comes as a result of changing technologies. Unfortunately for them, the only constant is change.
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
My message to EVF fans is enjoy them, but if OVF users have no choice in this that would be a disaster for them. And there will be stiff resistance from many users.
Click to expand...
OVF lovers will still have a choice, just like film lovers still have the choice to still shoot with film cameras. So relax. Even though the majority of the photography world has gone digital, you can still buy a new film SLR. Likewise, the same will be true of OVF cameras in the future. You'll still be able to buy one, even though it's quite possible that most cameras will have gone with EVF's. Besides, we're still years away from that scenario.
 
PerL said:
Hen3ry said:
... half a century later, I wouldn’t trade-in my current EVF for any of them, not even the best I had, the OM-1.
Click to expand...
Please dont mention an EVF in the same sentence as the OVF on the OM-1...
Click to expand...
Why not? People who loved the OM-1 generally loved it for its BIG, BRIGHT viewfinder. Unfortunately, you just can't get that with most of today's cameras because they all use much smaller sensors. Smaller sensor = smaller optical viewfinder. But with an EVF, the viewfinder size is no longer dependent on the size of the sensor format. With an EVF, the viewfinder size can be any size the manufacturer wants to make it. That means you could, conceivably, have a viewfinder as BIG and BRIGHT as the OM-1's viewfinder, even if your camera just has an APS-C or smaller sensor. In other words, you can have a 35mm full frame-sized viewfinder even though your camera doesn't have a 35mm full frame sensor! You could have an OM-1-sized viewfinder even with a camera with a much smaller m4/3 sensor. And with focus magnification or focus peaking, manual focusing with this EVF could be as easy to do as it was with the OM-1's viewfinder.
 
None of this silly "Sony thinks now" stuff matters, nor does the vituperation of OVF lovers, OVF will go away because flopping mirrors in the light path are bad things for where the camera has to go. You OVF fans will always have old ones you can buy and repair. The industry and the rest of us will move on with the technology.
 
wb2trf said:
None of this silly "Sony thinks now" stuff matters, nor does the vituperation of OVF lovers, OVF will go away because flopping mirrors in the light path are bad things for where the camera has to go. You OVF fans will always have old ones you can buy and repair. The industry and the rest of us will move on with the technology.
Click to expand...
Oh, great, next you're going to say that film is going away, and that the industry and the rest of us will move on with digital photography! Never going to happen!

Just kidding.
 
When you are in a live event, would you prefer to view from distance using binoculars or watch TV screen?
 
huksywolf said:
When you are in a live event, would you prefer to view from distance using binoculars or watch TV screen?
Click to expand...
That's a poor analogy. What you should say is, when putting your eye to those binoculars, would you rather be looking through a tunnel of glass, or would you rather have a large flat electronic screen in front of your eye. Looking through an EVF is not like watching a television screen from a distance because the EVF fills your field of vision, and it becomes your reality. It's more like standing close to a high definition flatscreen television playing a high quality Blu-Ray disc. Eventually, EVF's will be just like that. When you look at today's high definition TV's, the image is so crisp and clear, it's almost like it's sharper and crisper than reality! You can see every pore and wrinkle on a person's face on these screens. Eventually, we'll look into an EVF and see that same level of stunning crispness and detail.

The other thing you have to remember is that you can have a LARGE screen in the EVF because the size of the viewfinder is no longer limited by the size of the sensor format. The problem with today's DSLR's is that, unless you're using a FF camera, you end up with a small viewfinder because your camera is using a small sensor. That's the limitation of an optical viewfinder: small sensor format = small viewfinder. But with an EVF, you don't have that limitation. The EVF screen can be any size. Technically, you can have an m4/3 camera with a viewfinder the size of a 35mm FF viewfinder (or even larger). So I guess you have to ask whether you want to look through an optical viewfinder sized for a small 4/3 sensor, or would you rather look through an EVF the size of a 35mm FF viewfinder?
 
you are not looking at the real scene but with many valuables, brightness, hue, color that are subject to the settling.

EVF for camcorder is tolerable because the it's WYSIWYG. video has the same limitation as evf. 60p
 
huksywolf said:
you are not looking at the real scene but with many valuables, brightness, hue, color that are subject to the settling.
Click to expand...
But you're seeing the scene as your sensor sees it, which can also be very valuable.
Huskywolf said:
EVF for camcorder is tolerable because the it's WYSIWYG. video has the same limitation as evf. 60p
Click to expand...
Just wait until microOLED hits the market.
 
Well said.

EVF and OVF will overlap for a long time, with the market determining where each best fit. My personal take is that EVF will take over the vast majority of the market in a relatively short amount of time. I think the convenience of being able to access/view all relevant data in the same view as the subject matter being composed (in all shooting modes), as well as being able to zoom in/overlay data onto the scene will be sufficient for the majority of people to give up the optical benefits. Once you are used to having all that data, it's hard to go back (like in-viewfinder light metering and all the other innovations over the years).

That being said, there are enough benefits (in specific uses) to optical viewfinders to keep them in use for a very long time. I just see the majority of market moving to EVF (5MP OLED viewfinders already announced, and they keep getting better)

CL
T3 said:
It's no different from the early days of digital photography when people would say things like, "It's really dependent upon further development of digital sensors to the point where it's at least as good as film."

You also have to consider how good you really need it to be, and for what applications. For probably 90++ percent of the shooting population, the latest EVF's are easily good enough, while providing a lot of features and benefits that optical viewfinders lack. And obviously, as videography and photography become more and more enmeshed into unified devices (as we are clearly seeing with the rapid rise of the video DSLR), it'll be logical to enable video shooting while still using the viewfinder...which will obviously necessitate an EVF. I think that's what their ultimate goal is...to develop EVF to the level that they can finally get rid of the reflex mirror and put an EVF into their DSLR's, and have no one (or at least no reasonable person) scream bloody murder or throw a tantrum. I think that's what this all means.

But of course, there will be people who will never be happy with EVF, just like their are still film shooters who aren't happy with digital. It's simply enough for something to be different (even in the subtlest ways) for some people to not like something. However, that's never stopped the onward push of technology in response to changes in how we use devices and what we use devices for. With the advent of the mirrorless ILC class of cameras, as well as the growing importance of video in DSLR's, both categories of devices provide the impetus for taking the EVF to the highest levels possible.

This all bodes well for EVF. It's probably a reasonable certainty that all the big camera manufacturers (as well as plenty of outside electronics companies) are working to advance the state of the art in EVF technology to the highest levels, just like they did with digital image sensors. With all these companies investing so much in mirrorless ILC systems and video DSLR systems, their future success really depends on having EVF's perform up to the most demanding of expectations. They'll never be able to satisfy everyone , but if they can hit the fat section of the bell curve of users, that'll be enough.
jonikon said:
In this Imaging Resource interview Sony's Mark Weir who is Senior Manager of Technology and Marketing at Sony apparently admits that the EVF is still inferior to the OVF:

"...I think it really is dependent upon further developing the devices, [EVFs] to the point where it's at least as good as ...." - Mark Weir (Senior Manager of Technology and Marketing)

Imaging Resource redacted the full quote, but I suspect he said "as good as [ an OVF.]"
You can read the full interview here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/01/15/sony-interview-10-years-hence-will-mirror-based-cameras-be-a-distant-memory

What do you think?
---

Best regards,
Jon
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
PerL said:
In other words, a lowering of standards for economical reasons. I fear you might be right, unless photographers speak up and makes some noise about it.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure both EVFs and OVFs will continue to co-exist for a long time. I don't see Canon and Nikon putting EVFs on their top-tier models. Perhaps a hybrid one like what Fuji put on the X100 would be more like it.
 
I don't think Sony are admitting that the EVF is inferior to the OVF, but what they are saying is that an EVF will never be the same as an OVF.
--
VLampa said:
To err is Human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • User review User review
Well rounded
2 3
Replies
42
Views
49K
RLight
R
S
  • User review User review
** LUMIX G9 Mk2 Review. First Impressions? Excellent! **
2 3
Replies
52
Views
22K
Stevie Boy Blue
S
R
Imaging Resources Panasonic Interview: Sounds Like The LX100 II Will Be The Last Of The Line
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Jon_T
Jon_T
P
Sony's "ADVANTAGE" ... (Is it "straight-jacketing" competitors?)
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
643
Max Iso
Max Iso
F
Leica M11 Review: Bridge to the Future
Replies
15
Views
4K
Zephir 750
Z

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