B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I do but you can only go so far with an EVF it just does not show the details like an OVF
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?
- Thread starter jonikon
- Start date
You just hit the nail on the head with this statement of yours Barry! After all is said, the VF means viewfinder and most advanced amateur photographers that shoot in RAW mode would find all the extra information in an EVF superfluous, while the relatively poor viewing quality and real time delay of an EVF annoying.
However, I can see where an EVF would have great appeal to a JPEG shooting newbie that lacks the experience and confidence in his shooting abilities, and requires some "hand holding" via the EVF.
-Jon
--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!"
- Jon
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
That is your mistake, I think.
OVF espousers are utterly hung up on "detail." This is why it is impossible to take their criticisms of EVFs at all seriously.
Detail has practically nothing to do with the usability of a viewfinder, indeed, detail can be a distraction leading to failed composition.
Viewfinding is much more to do with the composition of general subject masses , and where those masses fall in relation to the edges of the frame .
The fact that OVF espousers seem woefully unaware of important viewfinder fundamentals, weakens their arguments against the REAL shortcomings that EVFs have....
.... (the poor ones are slow updating.)
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
EVFs yes they all do .
...and I'm out of yet another pointless thread .
Anyone know of a forum where I don't "need" EVF/ IS/gazillion Mp ?
I grow weary of childish wonderlust and crave photographic discussion .
I think it's natural for Sony to say good things about OVF because they have products which rely on a hybrid OVF/EVF as a marketing feature.
If you ask me, both have their benefits. Sony's hybrid solution seems nice.
...that most people, both OVF and EVF-fans,prefer high resolution viewfinders.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
If that's the case, (that high resolution and detail wins out over everything else) why isn't everybody using a wire-frame finder, as traditionally seen mounted atop an old fashioned press camera?
Let's face it, such frame finder has exemplary high rez, as good as your unaided eye can manage....
... so why do you put up with the hopelessly inadequate OVF, resolution wise, of a SLR?
Moreover, when it comes to poor resolution, OVFs are particularly useless with wide angle landscape photography, where, if you want to see detail, you are genuinely better off looking over the top of the camera even WITHOUT a frame finder to delineate the edges of the shot. This is what tripods are for, so that you don't have to keep holding the camera up to your face.
High rez is nice in a viewfinder, but for most photography it isn't necessary.
As it is, the EVF is the only current viewfinder that can actually increase its resolution on demand, in order to examine an area of detail more closely than the overall view permits. This makes the EVF a delight to use when detail is important, say, when manual focusing in macro. This is also one situation where the OVF is at its dimmest, of course. [Two stops dimmer at 1:1]
Like I say, I'm not much impressed by the standard of argument raised against EVFs. Mostly they seem to express the prejudices of people who have had very little experience of different types of viewfinders in general, with very little knowledge of how their beloved SLR OVFs perform relatively...
... and this steals away validity from the arguments that do have a footing in reality.
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
It's not about arguing .
EVF have some advantages
OVF have some advantages .
You choose the system that suits you and your photography .
All this banging on about which is best is nothing but hot air .
EVFs will get faster over time .
OVFs will improve too , maybe some new development in plastics may make it financially viable to put larger pentaprisms in every camera and still shave weight off .
Who knows , but certainly is healthy to embrace these improvements , they will be our assets , not threats to our photography style .
Arrgggg , I posted again in this thread ....
EVF have some advantages
OVF have some advantages .
You choose the system that suits you and your photography .
All this banging on about which is best is nothing but hot air .
EVFs will get faster over time .
OVFs will improve too , maybe some new development in plastics may make it financially viable to put larger pentaprisms in every camera and still shave weight off .
Who knows , but certainly is healthy to embrace these improvements , they will be our assets , not threats to our photography style .
Arrgggg , I posted again in this thread ....
When speaking of the pros and cons of these viewfinders, I think that many people don't realize that EVF's have the advantage of being brighter than OVFs, particularly in lower light conditions.
OVF = low light in, low light out.
As we all know, an OVF works by taking the light that passes through the lens, and bouncing it off a series of mirrors until that light exits the viewfinder. That of course means that if you're viewing a dimly lit scene, you're going to end up with a dimly lit viewfinder. But it gets even worse. Not all the light that exists in that scene actually makes it through to the viewfinder.
If you have an f/1.0 lens, you're going to get maximum light into the camera, and into the viewfinder. But not all of us are shooting with f/1.0 lenses. If you are shooting with an f/1.8 lens, that's already less light coming into the viewfinder. And it gets progressively worse as you go from f/1.8 to f/2.8 to f/4, etc. You can see this loss of light if you use an f/1.0 lens, then use DOF Preview to stop the lens down to f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, and so on. So the amount of light that ends up in the viewfinder ends up being less than what is in the scene, depending on the max aperture of your lens.
But even so, you're even going to lose a bit more light as the light passes through all the layers of glass in the lens, reflects off the reflex mirror, passes through the focusing screen, bounces around the prism, then finally exits the viewfinder. You are inevitably going to lose some light along the way. Hence, that's why people are always complaining about dim SLR viewfinder.
But it gets worse. Smaller sensor formats, with smaller mirrors, end up putting even less light into the viewfinder. Hence, that's why people are always complaining about dim crop-sensor DSLR viewfinders.
EVF, however, is different.
EVF = low light in, exposure brightness out
I first noticed this recently when I was shooting with my Oly E-PM1 with its VF3 electronic viewfinder, along with my Canon 60D in a somewhat low light situation this weekend . Jumping between each camera, it became quite apparent that the 60D's viewfinder was much dimmer than what I was seeing with the Oly's VF3 viewfinder. Then I realized that the VF3 was much brighter, more comfortable to see with, and clearer, because A) the VF3 has an illuminated screen inside it and B) that illuminated screen is showing me the exposure brightness based on the exposure settings that I had selected.
What that means is that no matter how dark a scene is, if you've used an exposure setting that makes the scene less dark, that's what you're going to see in the viewfinder! In other words, if you're shooting an a dimly lit situation, and your exposure makes the scene 2 stops brighter than it really is, that's what you're going to see in the EVF...a scene that is too stops brighter. Furthermore, the brightness of the viewfinder image is not hindered or effected by using a smaller maximum lens aperture, or any light loss from a reflex/optical viewfinder system.
With today's miracle of high quality high ISO, it's very easy to get a very bright viewfinder image by cranking up the ISO. Obviously, cranking up the ISO, or any other exposure settings, will not do anything to improve the brightness of an optical viewfinder. It is what it is.
In this image (below, shot at a reptile show-and-tell), as you can see the lighting was dim enough that I resorted to using ISO 4000 for this existing-light photo. And thanks to the fact that I was using an EVF (the VF3 on my E-PM1), the image I was looking at in the viewfinder was very comfortably bright ...in contrast to the extremely dim image I was seeing through the OVF of my 60D, which I was also using at the time! That's the beauty and advantage of having an EVF that shows your scene as it appears through your exposure settings ! And this never really occurred to me until this weekend when I was shooting an OVF and an EVF side by side in a dimly lit environment!
And in case you were wondering, no, I did not suffer from any EVF lag...at least none that I could notice, even when snakes and lizards were darting around, or when the children were jumping around in response to these lizards and snakes. Nor did I see any significant viewfinder noise...none worse than the grainy image one sees on the ground glass of an OVF. And as I have said, the EVF image was much brighter than what I was seeing in the dim, dark OVF viewfinder of my 60D.
So if you've ever complained about how today's optical viewfinders are so dim, you really owe it to yourself to get an EVF, especially if you shoot in lower light environments! I didn't realize the brightness advantage of EVF's until just this weekend! But that was only because I was able to compare it to a camera with an OVF (my 60D). And WOW, what a huge difference it is! You can see everything so much better, with no eye strain, because the viewfinder is as bright as if you were shooting in a much brighter situation...again, because the EVF is showing the exposure of the image in real time!
The image above was actually shot 1/3 stop under. If I had bumped up the exposure comp (dropping the shutter speed a bit), the image would have obviously been a bit brighter...and just as significantly, for the context of this discussion, the viewfinder image would have been brighter as well! Now try that with an OVF!
OVF = low light in, low light out.
As we all know, an OVF works by taking the light that passes through the lens, and bouncing it off a series of mirrors until that light exits the viewfinder. That of course means that if you're viewing a dimly lit scene, you're going to end up with a dimly lit viewfinder. But it gets even worse. Not all the light that exists in that scene actually makes it through to the viewfinder.
If you have an f/1.0 lens, you're going to get maximum light into the camera, and into the viewfinder. But not all of us are shooting with f/1.0 lenses. If you are shooting with an f/1.8 lens, that's already less light coming into the viewfinder. And it gets progressively worse as you go from f/1.8 to f/2.8 to f/4, etc. You can see this loss of light if you use an f/1.0 lens, then use DOF Preview to stop the lens down to f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, and so on. So the amount of light that ends up in the viewfinder ends up being less than what is in the scene, depending on the max aperture of your lens.
But even so, you're even going to lose a bit more light as the light passes through all the layers of glass in the lens, reflects off the reflex mirror, passes through the focusing screen, bounces around the prism, then finally exits the viewfinder. You are inevitably going to lose some light along the way. Hence, that's why people are always complaining about dim SLR viewfinder.
But it gets worse. Smaller sensor formats, with smaller mirrors, end up putting even less light into the viewfinder. Hence, that's why people are always complaining about dim crop-sensor DSLR viewfinders.
EVF, however, is different.
EVF = low light in, exposure brightness out
I first noticed this recently when I was shooting with my Oly E-PM1 with its VF3 electronic viewfinder, along with my Canon 60D in a somewhat low light situation this weekend . Jumping between each camera, it became quite apparent that the 60D's viewfinder was much dimmer than what I was seeing with the Oly's VF3 viewfinder. Then I realized that the VF3 was much brighter, more comfortable to see with, and clearer, because A) the VF3 has an illuminated screen inside it and B) that illuminated screen is showing me the exposure brightness based on the exposure settings that I had selected.
What that means is that no matter how dark a scene is, if you've used an exposure setting that makes the scene less dark, that's what you're going to see in the viewfinder! In other words, if you're shooting an a dimly lit situation, and your exposure makes the scene 2 stops brighter than it really is, that's what you're going to see in the EVF...a scene that is too stops brighter. Furthermore, the brightness of the viewfinder image is not hindered or effected by using a smaller maximum lens aperture, or any light loss from a reflex/optical viewfinder system.
With today's miracle of high quality high ISO, it's very easy to get a very bright viewfinder image by cranking up the ISO. Obviously, cranking up the ISO, or any other exposure settings, will not do anything to improve the brightness of an optical viewfinder. It is what it is.
In this image (below, shot at a reptile show-and-tell), as you can see the lighting was dim enough that I resorted to using ISO 4000 for this existing-light photo. And thanks to the fact that I was using an EVF (the VF3 on my E-PM1), the image I was looking at in the viewfinder was very comfortably bright ...in contrast to the extremely dim image I was seeing through the OVF of my 60D, which I was also using at the time! That's the beauty and advantage of having an EVF that shows your scene as it appears through your exposure settings ! And this never really occurred to me until this weekend when I was shooting an OVF and an EVF side by side in a dimly lit environment!
And in case you were wondering, no, I did not suffer from any EVF lag...at least none that I could notice, even when snakes and lizards were darting around, or when the children were jumping around in response to these lizards and snakes. Nor did I see any significant viewfinder noise...none worse than the grainy image one sees on the ground glass of an OVF. And as I have said, the EVF image was much brighter than what I was seeing in the dim, dark OVF viewfinder of my 60D.
So if you've ever complained about how today's optical viewfinders are so dim, you really owe it to yourself to get an EVF, especially if you shoot in lower light environments! I didn't realize the brightness advantage of EVF's until just this weekend! But that was only because I was able to compare it to a camera with an OVF (my 60D). And WOW, what a huge difference it is! You can see everything so much better, with no eye strain, because the viewfinder is as bright as if you were shooting in a much brighter situation...again, because the EVF is showing the exposure of the image in real time!
The image above was actually shot 1/3 stop under. If I had bumped up the exposure comp (dropping the shutter speed a bit), the image would have obviously been a bit brighter...and just as significantly, for the context of this discussion, the viewfinder image would have been brighter as well! Now try that with an OVF!
Yeah, just like digital photography isn't exactly the same as film. And just like film, the next generation won't even remember OVF anyways. They'll grow up with EVFs just like so many of today's photographers are growing up with digital. So ultimately, it becomes a non-issue that EVF isn't the same as OVF.
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
I am afraid not. OVFs are not capable of further improvement, in fact, for technical reasons to do with the mirror size that have already been explained, they cannot BE as good as in FF35mm film SLRs of the past. Indeed they are a lot worse than the viewfinders of budget cameras of 40 years ago. (Nikkormat, Practica etc.)
This is another reason we find this whole discussion so infuriating. The OVFs fans are so enamoured of are really rubbish!!
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
OVF has many parallels to film. Both come from the same era, and both have basically hit their limit of improvement. One could also say that they both may find the same level of limited usage in the future, but only time will tell.
As with all "analog"-era technologies (film, vinyl records, optical viewfinders, etc.), they is only so much you can do with them, and only so far you can take them. And one by one, digital overtook them.
As with all "analog"-era technologies (film, vinyl records, optical viewfinders, etc.), they is only so much you can do with them, and only so far you can take them. And one by one, digital overtook them.
jonrobertp
Forum Pro
n/t
Actually I think it is the more experienced and demanding photographers in general that dont accept the shortcomings of the current EVFs.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
What happends in real low light, as the EVF gains up, is that you get shadow noise in the viewfinder, including ugly digital color noise. Refesh rate also slows down so much that it is visible. Indoors you often also have to put up with disturbing WB-shifts.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
Well, that's an interesting thought, I must say!
Who've you got around here that is more experienced of all sorts of different viewfinders than me?
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
So I got a D90 and that VF is "utter rubbish"? I think not myself it's actually quite good. Yes we know crop sensor VF's are not as good and yes I have my 35mm bodies here to prove that.
On the other hand there is a world of difference from some penta mirror entry level body with a meagre 0.78x VF and a decent pentaprism one.
Stop trying to class everything as useless when it's not. Many of these models now have 100% viewfinders too.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
It's not my "mistake" it's my personal preference. As I have used an A77 I'm in a very good position to comment.
There are many issues with EVF's this is one of many
Nonsense it's very important for scenic work extremely important as it happens (if you're any good at it that is)
Talk about desperation trying to turn a postive into a negative as if high details leads to poor composition
It's to do with a lot of things the bad DR of EVF's is another serious issue too
The arguments are rock solid because they're made by people who actually "do photography" ;-)
We know that and add bad detail, poor DR, noise in low light, battery drain, quite useless for flash photography too.
Sure you can see a shot in very dark conditions with an EVF if you actually care about that.
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
All true!
And this is supposed to be WORSE than not seeing anything at all?(This is what I mean by arguments that don't make a lot a whole lot of sense!)
Note: None of my EVF cameras have a viewfinder newer than 6 years, but all of them can see into low light levels, and focus, better than I can with OVF...
.. even a good OVF from 40 years ago.
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
Barrie Davis
Forum Pro
The full frame ones are fine, and the top end glass prism APS are not bad, if a bit small. Entry level OVFs are very disappointing, especially alongside a good EVF.
Never have classed everything as useless, just the low end ones that the fans still INSIST outclass EVF.
Only the ultimate models have 100% viewfinders.... whereas even the lowest of the low EVFs are pixel perfect, right to the edge.
--
Regards,
Baz
"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum