Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?

Barrie Davis · Feb 28, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Barrie Davis said:

Detail has practically nothing to do with the usability of a viewfinder, indeed, detail can be a distraction leading to failed composition.

Click to expand...

Nonsense it's very important for scenic work extremely important as it happens (if you're any good at it that is)

This is an argument that has never made any sense to me, and I have done as much scenic work as the next man... also architectural exteriors/interiors etc.

My experience is with large format where, if you want to see detail with a 10x8" of 5x4", you have to put a black cloth over your head and peer at a dim upside-down image with a lupe....

Pretty soon you learn that the sensible way to see landscape detail is to dispense with the screen and look past the camera, instead.

Naturally, this technique can be applied to any camera that's tripod mountable. All you really NEED to see is in the viewfinder is the accurate limits of the frame, the rest is easier seen by looking past the camera.

This is especially true of any entry level dSLR with a wide angle lens on it, where the ability to see landscape detail through the viewfinder is negligible.

Member said:
Talk about desperation trying to turn a positive into a negative as if high details leads to poor composition.

If you want to know how failed composition occurs because of highly detailed viewfinders, just ask.

Hint: It occurs all the time in people photography. Maybe you can work out how by yourself(?) (It was something I observed when providing evening classes to amateurs, and defeating it became a regular part of my course.)

Member said:
Member said:

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 .

Click to expand...

It's to do with a lot of things the bad DR of EVF's is another serious issue too

We've been there. DR has nothing to do with where the main image masses fall in the composition, nor how the frame edges interpose themselves on that composition.

Member said:
Member said:

The fact that OVF espousers seem woefully unaware of important viewfinder fundamentals, weakens their arguments against the REAL shortcomings that EVFs have....

Click to expand...

The arguments are rock solid because they're made by people who actually "do photography" ;-)

Huh! You think I don't "do" photography?

I have been a pro for 50 years, and have taught other pros how to do it..

....namely, courses in Studio Lighting under the auspices of the Academy of the British Institute of Professional Photography.
--
Regards,
Baz

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

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 28, 2012

Barrie Davis said:
If you want to know how failed composition occurs because of highly detailed viewfinders, just ask.

I'll try to remember that with my "good shots" from my big VF Dynax 7 because it ruined them all ;-)

Barrie Davis said:
Hint: It occurs all the time in people photography. Maybe you can work out how by yourself(?) (It was something I observed when providing evening classes to amateurs, and defeating it became a regular part of my course.)

I can't say I've found that a problem myself

Barrie Davis said:
We've been there. DR has nothing to do with where the main image masses fall in the composition, nor how the frame edges interpose themselves on that composition.

It plays a bit part because the SLT viewfinders are too contrasty (even turned down as much as you can) I need to see what is going on in the highlights and the shadows. It's not you can't use them for taking shots of course you can..

But it's more work and interferes with the flow.

It also completely screws up pre visualisation which is another huge point to make
As said WYSINWYG

Barrie Davis said:
Huh! You think I don't "do" photography?

I don't think you grasp the basic points many have made, and ignore the serious issues with EVF's which are very obvious to many photographers.

There's a thread on the Canon forum about a mirror less rebel, not many replies, most simply are not interested. It's a very vocal minority who constantly banter on about something which is not relevant nor interesting to many buyers.

Barrie Davis said:
I have been a pro for 50 years, and have taught other pros how to do it..

....namely, courses in Studio Lighting under the auspices of the Academy of the British Institute of Professional Photography.
-

You could be reincarnated for 130 years and in a previous life Ansel Adams, but that doesn't make your weak arguments any more logical ;-)

PerL · Feb 28, 2012

Barrie Davis said:
PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

... and this steals away validity from the arguments that do have a footing in reality.

Click to expand...

Actually I think it is the more experienced and demanding photographers in general that don't accept the shortcomings of the current EVFs.

Click to expand...

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!"

I dont know, maybe you have a vast experience of all kind of cameras.

In the field where I have professional experience, PJ and sports, there is no other viewfinder type that can compete with OVFs.

I have used all kinds of OVFs in SLRs since the mid 70s and later in DSLRs. Since I have worked as an editor for a photo magazine I have shot with a large number of cameras, with OVFs and EVFs. So I think I have tried more than most people.

In OVFs everything from tiny ones in entry levels to the FF ones in Canons/Nikons pro models. In EVFs almost everything from m43 and Sony and the Nikon v1.

I want to point out that I dont defend the tiny OVFs in the entry level cameras - plain stupid if Canon and Nikon wants to compete with the EVF based mirrorless.

But from the middle range and up, say Nikon D90, D7000, Pentax K5, (Canon 60D is borderline) I think the OVFs are way better for many kinds of shooting.

Instead of accepting subpar performance I think those that prefer EVFs should be happy for those of us demanding more. That will give companies an incentive to improve EVFs, as well as better EVFs will give an incentive on DSLRs makes not to skimp on viewfinder size in the entry level models.

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

Barrie Davis · Feb 28, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Barrie Davis said:

Hint: It occurs all the time in people photography. Maybe you can work out how by yourself(?) (It was something I observed when providing evening classes to amateurs, and defeating it became a regular part of my course.)

Click to expand...

I can't say I've found that a problem myself.

No. Neither had I.

But amateurs evidently did have a particular and specific problem with composition when shooting groups of people, which problem disappeared when they had LESS good viewfinders than those of typical film SLRs. They didn't have the same problem shooting things say, a car, a tree, or a chest of drawers. In more recent times I noticed the same lack of this composition problem when they're using an LCD held out in front of them.

Any idea what it is yet? I only discovered exactly what was wrong when actually observing beginners shooting groups of their friends. Also, women tended to make more of hash of it than men did... which is also a little bit of a clue.

Member said:
Member said:

We've been there. DR has nothing to do with where the main image masses fall in the composition, nor how the frame edges interpose themselves on that composition.

Click to expand...

It plays a bit part because the SLT viewfinders are too contrasty (even turned down as much as you can) I need to see what is going on in the highlights and the shadows. It's not you can't use them for taking shots of course you can..

Sorry. I don't buy it. Whatever is going on in the highlights/shadows of an optical viewfinder has even less relevance to how the highlights are recorded than in an EVF view.

Member said:
I don't think you grasp the basic points many have made, and ignore the serious issues with EVF's which are very obvious to many photographers.

It's true, I don't.

With the exception of slow updating in EVFs, which matters only for action, I think the problems are exaggerated, and the benefits studiously ignored. Meanwhile, worse faults are ignored in OVFs (inaccuracy in framing) and spurious benefits grabbed out of the air...

... I mean, the "detail" thing is never going to convince me, is it?

And I think even you know the DR stuff is a load of BS. :-|
--
Regards,
Baz

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

Barrie Davis · Feb 28, 2012

PerL said:
Barrie Davis said:

Who've you got around here that is more experienced of all sorts of different viewfinders than me?

Click to expand...

PerL said:
I dont know, maybe you have a vast experience of all kind of cameras.

Yes, I suppose I have, really. Certainly, it would be a long list, if I started putting them all down here. Some of them were quite specialist, for instance, and as a matter of interest, have you ever heard of a Corfield WA-67? That was one of my favourites.... (tilting viewfinder, geared to the rising front.)

http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/2009/01/photo-gear-3-corfield-wa-67.html

(Click on one of the pictures and then roll mouse wheel to look around it.)

PerL said:
In the field where I have professional experience, PJ and sports, there is no other viewfinder type that can compete with OVFs.

I think I agree that the TTL reflex kind of OVF is what is needed for that, especially for long lenses/zooms...

.... where a masked Albada type, as in a Leica, is pretty hopeless, even if you can find one that zooms, and can be reliably interlinked to the lens.

PerL said:
I have used all kinds of OVFs in SLRs since the mid 70s and later in DSLRs. Since I have worked as an editor for a photo magazine I have shot with a large number of cameras, with OVFs and EVFs. So I think I have tried more than most people.

So, acknowledging your experience is not so different to mine, don't you think an EVF thrown onto a computer monitor is an altogether better "viewfinder" for a fashion shoot in the studio....

... than even a cart load of OVFs that only the photographer can see through? You know, where you have to wait for it to upload before anyone can see it?

Myself, in the studio I shoot my EVF cameras pretty much completely tethered to a laptop, and wouldn't touch the camera at all if the geared head and zoom lens had servos.

I should point out that the image on the screen isn't large in viewfinding mode, about 7x5", but three people can stand around it with ease.... and it is much better than a similarly sized LF format camera.

snip

PerL said:
I want to point out that I don't defend the tiny OVFs in the entry level cameras

That would be fair enough comment, except that those are the ones that predominate!

snip

PerL said:
But from the middle range and up, say Nikon D90, D7000, Pentax K5, (Canon 60D is borderline) I think the OVFs are way better for many kinds of shooting.

PerL said:
Instead of accepting subpar performance I think those that prefer EVFs should be happy for those of us demanding more. That will give companies an incentive to improve EVFs, as well as better EVFs will give an incentive on DSLRs makes not to skimp on viewfinder size in the entry level models.

Naturally, I am much in favour of manufacturers being encouraged to do better. ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

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

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

PerL said:
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.

Actually, it looks more or less like the image above. And obviously, that is the purpose and goal of EVF technology: to SHOW YOU your image through the EVF looking exactly as it will be CAPTURED, in real time. If you have a well-exposed image, that's what you'll see in the viewfinder. And that is SOOOO MUCH better than looking at a very dim OVF that shows an image with only a fraction of the light that is actually in the scene. I can't really imagine many rational, fair-minded users saying, "Wow, I really prefer that dark, dim image from the OVF!"

PerL said:
Refesh rate also slows down so much that it is visible.

Nope. I saw no noticeable delay, slowing, or lagging. I was still able to catch every image at the exact moment I wanted to...which is the ultimate test.

PerL said:
Indoors you often also have to put up with disturbing WB-shifts.

Like I said, the image looked more or less just like the image above. Besides, any WB shifts are merely a reflection of what the sensor is actually going to capture, which is a LOT better than looking at an OVF that offers zero exposure or WB feedback at all.

Anyways, being able to have my 60D OVF there right alongside my Oly VF3 electronic viewfinder was quite a revelation for me. The difference was so dramatically better...in the EVF's favor. From here on out, for any low light shooting, the EVF is definitely the one I'm going to use. The fact that you can get a viewfinder image that is clear and bright and easy to see, just as if I were shooting outdoors in good light, makes for a significant advantage and greatly increases my visual comfort. Given this advantage, EVF definitely has a very, very promising, and advantageous, future for anyone who has ever complained about OVF size and brightness (or dimness).

So given that EVF's offer a brightness advantage , as well as the potential for a size advantage (the viewfinder size is no longer tied to sensor size), and with EVF's getting higher and higher in resolution (to the point where they will easily equal the resolution of an OVF), as well as all the other advantages of an EVF (live exposure feedback, focus magnification, etc.), going back to a conventional OVF will seem quite primitive. In fact, switching between the OVF on my 60D, and the EVF on my Oly E-PM1, I was already feeling that way. When going from the EVF to the OVF, it was like, "Hey, who turned out the lights?" ...which is a pretty fair comment since an OVF has no internal illumination, and it's merely a mirror bouncing limited light into a prism.

If you want to continue to struggle with OVF's that are limited in brightness and size (which has become all too common in the digital SLR age, where most cameras lack the larger 35mm FF format), then feel free to continue to use OVF's. But I definitely think the next generation of photographers will see the very clear and obvious advantage of having a bright, clear, large, illuminated viewfinder screen that maintains its brightness level regardless of shooting conditions or whether you're using a slower lens. The next generation of photographers won't have the stubborn emotional attachment to OVF's that many of today's photographers currently have. They'll be able to look at the view through the respective viewfinders (OVF vs EVF) with a more objective eye (no pun intended).

BTW, I really wish I could use the image above to exactly simulate just how dim the OVF was, compared to the EVF. But it would only be a guess. Needless to say, however, I would have to darken the image above by a fairly significant margin. And again, I can't see many objective users saying, "Yeah, I really prefer that darker, dimmer view of the scene!"

NowHearThis · Feb 28, 2012

jonikon said:
What do you think?

I spent some time reading through the various posts, and my opinion regarding EVF vs OVF is closer to that of T3 and happy snapper UK.

Now let me qualify this. First, I don't think that EVFs are for everyone and I know that this is a bit of a polarizing topic, that said I think it can be a big plus for a large majority of shooters. Currently I shoot with a Canon T2i and shoot mostly landscapes and people. While I have enjoyed the picture quality I can get out of it (and my 15-85mm lens), I find the camera rather frustrating. I don't always use the OVF simply because the evaluative metering system in my Canon is too heavily weighted on the AF point. This causes severe over exposure or under exposure in many shots. Now I have found a work around - I now shoot in Center Weighted Metering mode when I have to be quick, or I turn the live view on and shoot in Full Manual when I don't mind waiting a while to let the camera focus - But I hate Canon's implementation of live view (specifically its 2-4 second AF with CD-AF).

My T2i (like my D40 before it) also has a small viewfinder and it would probably be fine if I could rely on the meter, but I can't so I don't like it that much either. Now not all EVFs are great, but the ones in the DSLRs/ILCs are good enough at the very least and extremely good in a few instances. I actually prefer using the A55's EVF to my T2i's OVF simply because I can see exactly what the picture will look like - before I take it. No more guessing, no more getting p!ssed off at the cameras metering system.

My D40 did better, but after using EVFs especially good ones like the ones on the Nikon V1, Sony A65/77/NEX7, I'm sold on them, I won't buy another camera that doesn't have one. I understand others have different opinions and that's fine.

I agree completely with what another poster wrote:

"I dont want an evf to look like reality..I want it to look like the shot Im taking"

For Landscape work I like the EVF for the following reasons:
• 100% coverage - I can frame the image exactly as I want it.

• Ability to preview things like exposure, WB, picture style/effects, etc. I'd like to be able to make small adjustments and see the effects happen live, before I take a shot.

• Having a live histogram is great, I didn't realize how much I liked this until I tried it out on a couple of Sony cameras.

For People I the EVF is also useful but the biggest pro for me is:

• I like being able to use the Face Detection feature on the camera, I can simply compose my picture as I want and let the face detection find and lock focus on my person/people - It saves me time and allows me to capture the moment quicker. I don't have to care about AF point, I don't have to focus first then move the camera and worry about parallax errors. Outdoors when it's bright, I can simply bring the camera up to my eye - compose as I want, and let the face detection work - which it does. Cameras with OVFs can't do that. Plus then I also get the other benefits like the 100% coverage, live exposure preview too, yada yada yada.

To finally answer the OP question above, Like them or hate them, they're here to stay.

--
NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

PerL · Feb 28, 2012

T3 said:
PerL said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, it looks more or less like the image above. And obviously, that is the purpose and goal of EVF technology: to SHOW YOU your image through the EVF looking exactly as it will be CAPTURED, in real time. If you have a well-exposed image, that's what you'll see in the viewfinder. And that is SOOOO MUCH better than looking at a very dim OVF that shows an image with only a fraction of the light that is actually in the scene. I can't really imagine many rational, fair-minded users saying, "Wow, I really prefer that dark, dim image from the OVF!"

T3 said:

Refesh rate also slows down so much that it is visible.

Click to expand...

Nope. I saw no noticeable delay, slowing, or lagging. I was still able to catch every image at the exact moment I wanted to...which is the ultimate test.

You should try a darker scene wity deep shadows, then you will see it. ISO 4000, F3.5, 1/250s is really not that dark. I dont remember the light levels of this ISO 12800 image (from a D3S), but in a case like this you would definitly see noise and delay on an EVF.

I dont know how slow the lens you used on the 60D, but with an 1.8 lens the OVF on my D300s and my F100 is about as bright as my eye sees.

T3 said:
T3 said:

Indoors you often also have to put up with disturbing WB-shifts.

Click to expand...

Like I said, the image looked more or less just like the image above. Besides, any WB shifts are merely a reflection of what the sensor is actually going to capture, which is a LOT better than looking at an OVF that offers zero exposure or WB feedback at all.

Anyways, being able to have my 60D OVF there right alongside my Oly VF3 electronic viewfinder was quite a revelation for me. The difference was so dramatically better...in the EVF's favor. From here on out, for any low light shooting, the EVF is definitely the one I'm going to use. The fact that you can get a viewfinder image that is clear and bright and easy to see, just as if I were shooting outdoors in good light, makes for a significant advantage and greatly increases my visual comfort. Given this advantage, EVF definitely has a very, very promising, and advantageous, future for anyone who has ever complained about OVF size and brightness (or dimness).

So given that EVF's offer a brightness advantage , as well as the potential for a size advantage (the viewfinder size is no longer tied to sensor size), and with EVF's getting higher and higher in resolution (to the point where they will easily equal the resolution of an OVF), as well as all the other advantages of an EVF (live exposure feedback, focus magnification, etc.), going back to a conventional OVF will seem quite primitive. In fact, switching between the OVF on my 60D, and the EVF on my Oly E-PM1, I was already feeling that way. When going from the EVF to the OVF, it was like, "Hey, who turned out the lights?" ...which is a pretty fair comment since an OVF has no internal illumination, and it's merely a mirror bouncing limited light into a prism.

If you want to continue to struggle with OVF's that are limited in brightness and size (which has become all too common in the digital SLR age, where most cameras lack the larger 35mm FF format), then feel free to continue to use OVF's. But I definitely think the next generation of photographers will see the very clear and obvious advantage of having a bright, clear, large, illuminated viewfinder screen that maintains its brightness level regardless of shooting conditions or whether you're using a slower lens. The next generation of photographers won't have the stubborn emotional attachment to OVF's that many of today's photographers currently have. They'll be able to look at the view through the respective viewfinders (OVF vs EVF) with a more objective eye (no pun intended).

BTW, I really wish I could use the image above to exactly simulate just how dim the OVF was, compared to the EVF. But it would only be a guess. Needless to say, however, I would have to darken the image above by a fairly significant margin. And again, I can't see many objective users saying, "Yeah, I really prefer that darker, dimmer view of the scene!"

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

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

PerL said:
You should try a darker scene wity deep shadows, then you will see it. ISO 4000, F3.5, 1/250s is really not that dark. I dont remember the light levels of this ISO 12800 image (from a D3S), but in a case like this you would definitly see noise and delay on an EVF.

I dont know how slow the lens you used on the 60D, but with an 1.8 lens the OVF on my D300s and my F100 is about as bright as my eye sees.

Sorry, but an OVF is always going to be limited by the amount of light entering the viewfinder. Always . That's simply the limitation of the technology. In other words, you're never going to get an OVF that is brighter than the low light scene in front of it. Never . And it's always going to be like that.

EVF's, on the other hand, don't have that limitation. Furthermore, any issues of supposed lag or noise will also get better. Do you really think that's going to be an eternal issue? LOL.

I think we have to conclude that some members of the older generation that has grown up on OVF's will probably never be able to adapt to the change to EVF's, or accept the change to EVF's. It's just human nature. People get used to what they are used to, and want to stick to it, regardless of whatever technological or performance potential the new technologies offer. But the newer generation of photographers aren't going to be hobbled by that kind of thinking. It's kind of like trying to get someone who has grown up with the abacus to convert to the electronic calculator or computer. Some people just won't be able to make the transition because they have the psychological attachment to what they are used to.

You can kind of see this irrational obstinance exhibited by Perl. He can completely ignore the numerous tangible and practical advantages/benefits of EVF, but he'll obsess about the appearance of noise (which he, himself, has to magnify significantly for you in order to see it) and complain about supposed delay in an extremely low light environment that, in practical usage, will only get better and better with every subsequent generation of EVF technology. But even as it is, I haven't seen any delay that has been sufficient to keep me from getting the images I want to get.

As we move forwards, we'll continue to see the "old guard" continuing to grasp at fewer and fewer straws in their battle against technology, especially as the technology continues to get better and better.

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

jonikon said:
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,

Keep in mind that the same thing was said about auto exposure metering, auto focus, image stabilization, etc. All these technologies were dismissed by more "experienced" photographers as merely being "newbie" tools for those that "lack the experience and confidence" in their shooting abilities. Today, you can't even imagine a pro camera system not having these features and capabilities!

I remember when Canon first introduced Image Stabilization in their consumer-level EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens in 1995, and then in their consumer-level EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM in 1998. Some short-sighted and close-minded "experienced" photographers dismissed IS technology as a feature for "less experienced" photographers who were less skilled at hand-holding their lenses, or less confident in their hand-holding skills, or who lacked the discipline (ie, too lazy) to use a tripod or monopod to get a steady shot. Gee, I wonder where these geniuses are now? LOL.

Likewise, we are now having a repeat of history with EVF technology. Once again, it's a technology being dismissed by some "experienced" photographers as just a helpful tool for "newbie" photographers. It's deja vu all over again!

PerL · Feb 28, 2012

T3 said:
PerL said:

You should try a darker scene wity deep shadows, then you will see it. ISO 4000, F3.5, 1/250s is really not that dark. I dont remember the light levels of this ISO 12800 image (from a D3S), but in a case like this you would definitly see noise and delay on an EVF.

I dont know how slow the lens you used on the 60D, but with an 1.8 lens the OVF on my D300s and my F100 is about as bright as my eye sees.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but an OVF is always going to be limited by the amount of light entering the viewfinder. Always . That's simply the limitation of the technology. In other words, you're never going to get an OVF that is brighter than the low light scene in front of it. Never . And it's always going to be like that.

That is true, but right now, things are that if you cant see it with an OVF and a fast lens, you cant shoot it with a current camera with an EVF at handholdable speeds. It might change as sensors and EVFs improve.

(BTW I think you misunderstod the image I posted, it was just an example of deep shadows that I had easily available in my DPReview galleries, the enlarged crop had nothing to do with what I wanted to show.)

T3 said:
EVF's, on the other hand, don't have that limitation. Furthermore, any issues of supposed lag or noise will also get better. Do you really think that's going to be an eternal issue? LOL.

I think we have to conclude that some members of the older generation that has grown up on OVF's will probably never be able to adapt to the change to EVF's, or accept the change to EVF's. It's just human nature. People get used to what they are used to, and want to stick to it, regardless of whatever technological or performance potential the new technologies offer. But the newer generation of photographers aren't going to be hobbled by that kind of thinking. It's kind of like trying to get someone who has grown up with the abacus to convert to the electronic calculator or computer. Some people just won't be able to make the transition because they have the psychological attachment to what they are used to.

Dont you think it is better to point out the weak spots than ignore them, even if you prefer an EVF as they are today over an OVF? That gives incentives to put in resources for improvements. If everyone is quiet, that might not be the case.

T3 said:
You can kind of see this irrational obstinance exhibited by Perl. He can completely ignore the numerous tangible and practical advantages/benefits of EVF, but he'll obsess about the appearance of noise (which he, himself, has to magnify significantly for you in order to see it) and complain about supposed delay in an extremely low light environment that, in practical usage, will only get better and better with every subsequent generation of EVF technology. But even as it is, I haven't seen any delay that has been sufficient to keep me from getting the images I want to get.

You can divide my critical views on EVFs in two parts. One is completly objectively motivated, based on the shortcomings in continous live view at fast fps and the bad CDAF performance (although Nikon 1-series seems to have solved it to some extent with the hybride CDAF/PDAF). Even the mirrorless companies themselves are very aware of this. This seriously limits the usability for action/sports shooting where the current generation cant compete with OVFs. Yes, that might change, but remember that the OP was about if OVFs were better now, not what is going to happen in the future.

The other part is more subjective, based on how one wants to work. Some wants to have constant feedback on how their settings play out, others wants to concentrate more on the subject. Its a matter of taste. I like a crisp clear view that makes me feel more connected to the scene.

T3 said:
As we move forwards, we'll continue to see the "old guard" continuing to grasp at fewer and fewer straws in their battle against technology, especially as the technology continues to get better and better.

I understand that EVFs might be the price one has to pay for compactness in cameras like for instance the new Oly OM-D.

But I also think one is naive if one thinks that the technology companies wants to push for practical or cost cutting reasons always is in the interests of photographers. See for instance how they skipped viewfinders on almost all P&S cameras.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

PerL said:
But I also think one is naive if one thinks that the technology companies wants to push for practical or cost cutting reasons always is in the interests of photographers.

Yeah, being able to see a bright illuminated viewfinder image regardless of whether the light is low or your lens is slow, being able to have 100% viewfinder coverage across all cameras, being able to have real-time exposure feedback, being able to manually focus with focus peaking or focus magnfication, being able to have real-time WB feedback, being able to have a live histogram in the viewfinder on demand, being able to change viewfinder aspect ratio, being able to do face-detection focus tracking, being able to seemlessly switch between video shooting and photo shooting while still using the same viewfinder, being able to have a viewfinder size that isn't limited by sensor format size, being able to eliminate mirror noise and mirror vibration, etc,...none of these things are in the interest of photographers!

If the technology companies can cut costs while still delivering these numerous advantages and benefits, I think most level-headed, open-minded photographers will take it! It's win-win.

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

T3 said:
PerL said:

But I also think one is naive if one thinks that the technology companies wants to push for practical or cost cutting reasons always is in the interests of photographers.

Click to expand...

BTW, yes, let's not be naive. The real reason why companies will push for something like EVF is that it will sell cameras! That's always been the goal of all technological additions to cameras: it's in the interest of selling cameras! Why do you think the camera and tech companies gave us auto exposure metering? Or auto focus? Or image stabilization? Or more focus points? Or matrix metering? Or Live View? Or video in DSLRs? It's always been in the interest of selling cameras. And you can't really expect to sell more cameras if you can't show a tangible, effective benefit to the users, the buyers, the photographers.

Plus, let's not be naive about the cost of developing EVF technology. It doesn't come for free. EVF's aren't free. Sure, in the long run, it may cut camera costs, but it will also take time to recoup R&D costs, too. Plus, it may very well be that the ultimate, best, largest, highest-definition EVF's will cost as much as the best optical viewfinders, resulting in no cost savings at all. But as long as it delivers more advantages, benefits and advancements to the photographers, resulting in more sales, it'll be worth it to these companies. After all, did adding auto exposure metering, auto focus, image stabilization, more focus points, more advanced metering systems, Live View, and video DSLR capabilities cut costs for the camera manufacturers? Probably not.

jonikon · Feb 28, 2012

T3 said:
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.

T3 said:
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.

Your argument is a specious one which fails to take into account that the human eye's sensitivity to visible light is far greater than that of a camera sensor. According to one article the human eyes have an ISO of around 60,000!
http://www.pixiq.com/article/eyes-vs-cameras

Using lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.8 on my pentaprism equipped DSLR, I have no trouble at all seeing in extremely dim light that absolutely requires a flash. As an example this basement museum where my wife's P&S camera was next to useless relying on the LCD as a viewfinder.

Also EVFs will flare badly and dim if they encounter a bright spot light source in the scene. The human eye compensates for this far better. However, I concede that for people who suffer severe eye diseases, such as macular degeneration, the EVF would be most helpful.

-Jon

--
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!"

Jon

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

jonikon said:
Your argument is a specious one which fails to take into account that the human eye's sensitivity to visible light is far greater than that of a camera sensor. According to one article the human eyes have an ISO of around 60,000!

All that's doing is making the human eye make up for the deficiencies of the viewfinder!

Plus, I find it hilarious that when we all first started switching from film SLR's to APS-C DSLR's, we all at one time or another complained about how small and dim DSLR viewfinders were...which is a natural result of the fact that APS-C sensors are so much smaller than 35mm FF sensors! Now, it's interesting that, in the face of EVF technology bringing an improvement not only to the size of viewfinders but also the brightness of viewfinders-- regardless of sensor size-- we now have OVF proponents suddenly saying that their OVF's are the greatest thing ever! LOL.

Let's face it, OVF's often have very limited light to work with, as I discussed in my earlier posting. Light makes it past the various layers of glass inside the lens, past the smaller-than-f/1.0 aperture opening (oftentimes the aperture is much smaller than f/1.0), bounces off the reflex mirror, passes through the ground glass focusing screen, bounces around the prism, and what's left of that light ends up hitting the back of your eye. It's never going to get any better than that. And yet, you folks seem to think that it's awesome and can never be bested! LOL.

Fortunately, EVF isn't limited in the same way as OVF is. And you don't have to force your eye to compensate for the dimness of OVF's. Heck, if having your eye do all the compensation is all you needed, then why do people tout the advantages of the bigger, brighter viewfinders of 35mm FF bodies? I use a 5D, as well as a 40D and a 60D. You can't tell me that the bigger, brighter viewfinder of the 5D isn't any better than the smaller, dimmer viewfinders of the 40D and 60D! Brighter and bigger is better. That's what EVF's can do! EVF is an illuminated, light-emitting screen whose brightness can be increased or decreased, and whose size is not limited to the size of your sensor format.

The other thing to consider is that the viewfinder of my m4/3 format camera, which is a much smaller format than APS-C, was actually giving me a brighter and better view than my APS-C camera. Only an EVF can allow that to happen. That's the advantage of EVF. You can have a very compact, small sensor, and still enjoy a large, bright viewfinder image. Heck, imagine having an APS-C or FF camera with an EVF the size of a medium format viewfinder! With EVF, you can have that!

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 28, 2012

Barrie Davis said:
... I mean, the "detail" thing is never going to convince me, is it?

I don't have to convince you I just see the problem for scenic work and it IS a problem

Barrie Davis said:
And I think even you know the DR stuff is a load of BS. :-|

Actually I think it's critical and a major downside to the EVF.

Come on get real a bit here if you think that highlights and shadows and what's in them don't matter to photography then I've one question..where have you been for 50 years then?

The bad DR is very much a problem as the sensor is capable of capturing far more so you get a very limited DR in the EVF which is a problem as far as I'm concerned. It's also another slap in the face for so called EVF rules crowd.

You might complain that I get too much DR with my eyes and an OVF, thing is I get to see what's going on in both. Not so with the EVF

Sorry but EVF's are so far away from even being a half decent OVF substitute it's gone beyond funny. Go try an SLT and see things come crashing down. They're just sub par and not anywhere near as good as some of the review sites make them out to be

Erick L · Feb 28, 2012

Barry Fitzgerald said:
Barrie Davis said:

... I mean, the "detail" thing is never going to convince me, is it?

Click to expand...

I don't have to convince you I just see the problem for scenic work and it IS a problem

If you really know how to meter, all you need from a viewfinder for scenic work is accurate framing. Details and DR don't matter one bit.

--
Erick - http://www.borealphoto.com

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 28, 2012

Erick L said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:

Barrie Davis said:

... I mean, the "detail" thing is never going to convince me, is it?

Click to expand...

I don't have to convince you I just see the problem for scenic work and it IS a problem

Click to expand...

If you really know how to meter, all you need from a viewfinder for scenic work is accurate framing. Details and DR don't matter one bit.

--
Erick - http://www.borealphoto.com

Really then I suggest you spread the gospel on this to landscape photographers because it's news to me ;-)

Landscapes are detailed so it's important that you can see what is in the scene, and what you want or don't want there. If DR isn't an issue for scenic work then I'm lost for words.

I'm wondering how many people here are prepared to throw sound photographic advice out the window to do support their love of EVF's staggering..really I'm amazed at some of the statements being made here

T3 · Feb 28, 2012

Erick L said:
Barry Fitzgerald said:

Barrie Davis said:

... I mean, the "detail" thing is never going to convince me, is it?

Click to expand...

I don't have to convince you I just see the problem for scenic work and it IS a problem

Click to expand...

If you really know how to meter, all you need from a viewfinder for scenic work is accurate framing. Details and DR don't matter one bit.

Don't worry about Barry. He'll take his irrational FUD to the grave with him. The rest of us know full well that for "scenic" work, you set your focus point, set your DOF, frame your image, and take your shot. For some bizarre reason, he thinks he needs to see every vein on every leaf (which you can't see with an OVF anyways) in order to shoot scenics. Plus, what kind of extreme DR scenics is he shooting anyways? LOL.

In the future, I actually think large, high def EVF's will be the choice for scenic and studio shooters, because they will offer a level of viewfinder size, brightness, and resolution that will be unparalleled. Imagine shooting with an APS-C camera, but having an EVF that was as large, or larger, than 35mm FF! You can do that with EVF. You can't do that with OVF. Or imagine shooting with a 35mm FF camera, but having an EVF the size of medium format? Again, you can do that with EVF, but you can't do that with OVF. Using this next generation of EVF will be like looking at a gorgeous high def Blu-Ray on a gorgeous high def flatscreen panel television. Then, imagine with the push of a button being able to jump to a high magnification of your scene to check critical focus! Again, you can do that with EVF, but you can't do that with OVF. Then, imagine being able to scroll and navigate around this high magnification image with the camera's joystick or directional pad, all in real time. That, too, would be technically possible with EVF as well. And again, it's not possible with OVF.

If Barry wants to be left behind, using his primitive reflecting mirror and prism, so be it. Leave him in the past.

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 28, 2012

T3 said:
Keep in mind that the same thing was said about auto exposure metering, auto focus, image stabilization, etc. All these technologies were dismissed by more "experienced" photographers as merely being "newbie" tools for those that "lack the experience and confidence" in their shooting abilities. Today, you can't even imagine a pro camera system not having these features and capabilities!

That does not represent the feelings of most people at the time.

T3 said:
I remember when Canon first introduced Image Stabilization in their consumer-level EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens in 1995, and then in their consumer-level EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM in 1998. Some short-sighted and close-minded "experienced" photographers dismissed IS technology as a feature for "less experienced" photographers who were less skilled at hand-holding their lenses, or less confident in their hand-holding skills, or who lacked the discipline (ie, too lazy) to use a tripod or monopod to get a steady shot. Gee, I wonder where these geniuses are now? LOL.

IS is useful but it has limitations there are no free rides if you need to stop action or movement IS isn't going to help much. It was not dismissed, simply put into the context of being handy but hardly "killer"

T3 said:
Likewise, we are now having a repeat of history with EVF technology. Once again, it's a technology being dismissed by some "experienced" photographers as just a helpful tool for "newbie" photographers. It's deja vu all over again!

Wrong, EVF's are being vocally pushed by about 4 forum members, meanwhile most folks couldn't care less about them. Do we see an angry mob of Canikon users demanding them? Nope..why is that?

Because you like them does not mean they are "better"

Power focus was all the rage 20 years ago it was worse than mechanical focus. Lessons to learn newer is not always better

Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Senior Member

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts