Has Sony admitted EVF is inferior to OVF?

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And you know so much about scenic work do you?

Making excuses for poor details in the EVF is simply a fanboy defender position. Same for the bad DR it's an excuse to cover up the fact EVF's are far from as great as some would make them out to be.

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fluffy nonsense if I ever saw it! ;-)

Barry Fitzgerald said:

Member said:

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.

Click to expand...

Fluffy nonsense if I ever saw it! ;-)

Click to expand...

That's what the narrow-minded oldsters always say. But the reality is that many of these things are already true! Also, just wait until micoOLEDs, and similar technologies, hit the market! 5.4 million pixel density, double the pixel density of comparable products, huge DR, ultra low power consumption.

People like Barry are loath to change for any reason, regardless of the benefits. People like Barry have existed throughout the history of photography.

Technology gives us auto exposure metering (P, Av, Tv), and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to manual (M) metering."

Technology gives us auto focus, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to manual focus."

Technology gives us image stabilization, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to my own hand holding skills and my clunky tripod."

Technology gives us digital photography, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to film."

Technology gives us video in DSLRs, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll just carry along my videocam."

Technology gives us new things, and people like Barry will always say no to it...at least initially. They fail to see the possibilities and advantages, so their knee-jerk reaction is always, "No way!"

Thank God people like Barry aren't in charge of camera product development!!! LOL. Otherwise, we'd probably still be using Kodak Brownies!

Sigh, yep, it's deja vu all over again. LOL! It's the same-old same-old resistance from those who are simply too narrow-minded and set in their ways to even entertain anything new or different. It happens over and over again.

Barry Fitzgerald said:

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!

Click to expand...

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

Member 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.

Click to expand...

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"

Member 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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Barry Fitzgerald said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Details only matters on the edge of the frame to know what goes in and what goes out. I'd rather have a large 100% finder than a small 96% finder. Doesn't matter how much details you can see when it's blacked out because the finder doesn't show the whole scene.

Can you actually explain why DR matters? Have you actually thought about why you need it? It matters in the actual photo but not in the viewfinder. People have done landscapes with external meters for decades. They didn't need DR in the viewfinder.

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

T3 said:

Click to expand...

Ooooo...EV 6.3.

Try EV 0 (ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/15th) - 6 1/3 stops (about a factor of 80) darker than yours:



Amazingly (according to you), I had no trouble seeing this through the viewfinder, and seeing it about as well as with the naked eye.

You see, that's because of dark adaptation - my eyes were adapted to the very-dark conditions. These conditions were designed to be observed, as this was a ride at Epcot center (people on the ride were supposed to see this, about as it's presented here). Thankfully, my viewfinder didn't mess up the dark adaptation of my eye the way an EVF would have since that would have meant having that eye be blind to the dark conditions for somewhere between a few seconds and a few minutes after taking each shot I took on this particular ride.

Oh...and this was taken from a moving boat, so I'm glad I didn't have to suffer from the very, very long EVF lag that would have been going on at this moment.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee, we all know that you wish EVF's would go away forever, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen. People want larger, brighter viewfinders, and OVF's have obviously hit their limitations, while EVF's are only just beginning to tap into their potential. And you know you're getting desperate, Lee, when you're arguing that darker OVF's are a good thing! LOL.

Plus, if you're really into darker viewfinders in order to protect your "dark adaptation", you forget that with an EVF you can adjust it's brightness level ((yes, for all you dark viewfinder lovers out there). Try doing that with an OVF!

ljfinger said:

T3 said:

Click to expand...

Ooooo...EV 6.3.

Try EV 0 (ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/15th) - 6 1/3 stops (about a factor of 80) darker than yours:



Amazingly (according to you), I had no trouble seeing this through the viewfinder, and seeing it about as well as with the naked eye.

You see, that's because of dark adaptation - my eyes were adapted to the very-dark conditions. These conditions were designed to be observed, as this was a ride at Epcot center (people on the ride were supposed to see this, about as it's presented here). Thankfully, my viewfinder didn't mess up the dark adaptation of my eye the way an EVF would have since that would have meant having that eye be blind to the dark conditions for somewhere between a few seconds and a few minutes after taking each shot I took on this particular ride.

Oh...and this was taken from a moving boat, so I'm glad I didn't have to suffer from the very, very long EVF lag that would have been going on at this moment.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Honestly, the lack of DR is a problem. The first time I looked through a Sony A77 OLED EVF was at a presentation where they had put all the new cameras and other stuff, mostly in black or silver colors, on a white table. The sun was shining through the windows so the light was very contrasty. Almost everything was blown out white or blocked out black in the Sony state-of-the-art EVF viewfinder. Ironicly, when I switched to the DSLR with OVF I had with me, I could see everything as clear as with my eyes. Just a simple example.

Another one - when I shot this to test the AF of a Sony A33, I could hardly see the rider when he turned from sun into the shade, the EVF could not handle the contrast. (And of course the "slideshow" behaviour was disturbing, but this is another thing)

This is not mindless EVF bashing, this is things I noticed when I have used EVFs.

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

But still reality impress more. One has to ask the rhetorical question - if this technology was available, would you switch your windows on your house for big HD-screens?
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

PerL said:

Honestly, the lack of DR is a problem. The first time I looked through a Sony A77 OLED EVF was at a presentation where they had put all the new cameras and other stuff, mostly in black or silver colors, on a white table. The sun was shining through the windows so the light was very contrasty. Almost everything was blown out white or blocked out black in the Sony state-of-the-art EVF viewfinder.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's a problem and a huge one. I tried the first pellicle Sonys, and man, they were really bad. I initially planned to try A77 too, but hearing the same comment you made from several users, I just won't bother.

So, here we have a screen that shows the scene as it is in real life, and the screen that shows no sky, no shadows, and messed up colors:





Maybe EVF will one day get to the point where they're almost usable, but right now, they're just bad with no redeeming quality. But I do understand newbies need photographic crutches and that's where EVF might have use for them. No problem for me, everyone is free to use whatever they like..

T3 said:

Lee, we all know that you wish EVF's would go away forever, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen. People want larger, brighter viewfinders, and OVF's have obviously hit their limitations, while EVF's are only just beginning to tap into their potential. And you know you're getting desperate, Lee, when you're arguing that darker OVF's are a good thing! LOL.

Plus, if you're really into darker viewfinders in order to protect your "dark adaptation", you forget that with an EVF you can adjust it's brightness level ((yes, for all you dark viewfinder lovers out there). Try doing that with an OVF!

ljfinger said:

T3 said:

Click to expand...

Ooooo...EV 6.3.

Try EV 0 (ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/15th) - 6 1/3 stops (about a factor of 80) darker than yours:



Amazingly (according to you), I had no trouble seeing this through the viewfinder, and seeing it about as well as with the naked eye.

You see, that's because of dark adaptation - my eyes were adapted to the very-dark conditions. These conditions were designed to be observed, as this was a ride at Epcot center (people on the ride were supposed to see this, about as it's presented here). Thankfully, my viewfinder didn't mess up the dark adaptation of my eye the way an EVF would have since that would have meant having that eye be blind to the dark conditions for somewhere between a few seconds and a few minutes after taking each shot I took on this particular ride.

Oh...and this was taken from a moving boat, so I'm glad I didn't have to suffer from the very, very long EVF lag that would have been going on at this moment.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am not sure that you understand why some people don't like EVFs in the dark.

Many people have different opinion on the for various reasons, but in my own opinion no EVF that I have tried to date gives me a pictures that I would like to see when it is very dark or very bright. When it is very dark, the sensor boost gives a noisy and rough picture at light levels where my eyes can adjust and still see clearly. Now, I should point out that I have better than average night vision and that may be part of the reason why. I the daylight, when very bright, there are definite dynamic range issues with the EVF as well. I personally find the Canon 350D viewfinder bright enough for me even with a slow lens, and that I can see what is happening without any delay from and EVF and can even open both eyes without each eye seeing an image that is a different time (one delayed and one instant).

I can also appreciate that EVF has some advantages, such as DoF represntation accuracy that an OVF can only get if you install a custom matte viewfinder screen (and the dimmer picture means you may very well need to have better vision to use it well). EVF can also display all your setting on screen, but OVF has been able to do this for a long time. Oh, and so far only EVF is working on cameras that have face-detection, which is a great feature for me.

There is also a third option, which is no viewfinder (or to temporarily not use your EVF or OVF but use live view instead), and to be honest is you are using a normal or close to normal prime, you can learn it so well as to not even need a viewfinder to compose, and a cursory glance a the LCD screen on the back of the camera can give you confirmation that you have the framing you want, while you can maintain eye contact with your subjects, for photographing children and people, it can be argued that in many cases this give a more natural result.

In summary, there are advantages to each, and some will suite certain people work style better, I am not sure what some people have against OVF, EVF or again not using either. To each their own. Hopefully this helps people to understand why some people like or dislike OVFs or EVFs in the dark (I like OVF in the dark, but my wife has poor vision and likes EVF in the dark, just for the record).

T3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Errr... are you saying that there are currently some EVF cameras that DON'T do that? Because that precise feature is present on my Konica Minolta A2, which came out in 2004.... [???]

KM A2 is a nice camera -- I still use it, mostly for landscape piccies when out walking! ;-)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminoltaa2/
--
Regards,
Baz

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

PerL said:

Honestly, the lack of DR is a problem. The first time I looked through a Sony A77 OLED EVF was at a presentation where they had put all the new cameras and other stuff, mostly in black or silver colors, on a white table. The sun was shining through the windows so the light was very contrasty. Almost everything was blown out white or blocked out black in the Sony state-of-the-art EVF viewfinder. Ironicly, when I switched to the DSLR with OVF I had with me, I could see everything as clear as with my eyes. Just a simple example.

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued. How come you have a problem with that?

The viewfinder system you described is one that FOREWARNS of the precise parts of the image that are most like to burst through sensor DR limits to burn out or clog up in the contrasty lighting.

From a logical point of view, I think such viewfinder behaviour counts as a considerable benefit, by providing real-time update on one of the things it is most useful to know in digital photography.

Seriously, I find your kind of backwards thinking leaves the anti-EVF position looking extremely weak. Or, put another way, I think you need your logic module pulling out, turning over, and putting back in again. ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

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

T3 said:

That's what the narrow-minded oldsters always say. But the reality is that many of these things are already true! Also, just wait until micoOLEDs, and similar technologies, hit the market! 5.4 million pixel density, double the pixel density of comparable products, huge DR, ultra low power consumption.

Click to expand...

I'm not old far from it.

We keep hearing about this amazing technology of the future, but it's not here yet and it's a million miles away from where it should be.

T3 said:

People like Barry are loath to change for any reason, regardless of the benefits. People like Barry have existed throughout the history of photography.

Click to expand...

There are few advantages for me to use an EVF, and a number of notable and serious disadvantages. I'm not sure how hard that is to grasp.

T3 said:

Technology gives us auto exposure metering (P, Av, Tv), and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to manual (M) metering."

Click to expand...

I use aperture priority mostly ;-)

T3 said:

Technology gives us auto focus, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to manual focus."

Click to expand...

I never objected to AF because I can use manual focus too. You have a choice

T3 said:

Technology gives us image stabilization, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to my own hand holding skills and my clunky tripod."

Click to expand...

IS is useful but it's not a cushion for sloppy technique it has limits

T3 said:

Technology gives us digital photography, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll stick to film."

Click to expand...

I shoot digital, and I shoot film from time to time. So are you too narrow minded to shoot film?

T3 said:

Technology gives us video in DSLRs, and people like Barry say, "No way! I'll just carry along my videocam."

Click to expand...

I don't have a camcorder I do have video on my DSLR but I don't shoot video a lot.

T3 said:

Technology gives us new things, and people like Barry will always say no to it...at least initially. They fail to see the possibilities and advantages, so their knee-jerk reaction is always, "No way!"

Click to expand...

That's the problem "technology junkies" whilst most just want to get on and take good pics

T3 said:

Thank God people like Barry aren't in charge of camera product development!!! LOL. Otherwise, we'd probably still be using Kodak Brownies!

Click to expand...

Nope you'd be using some damn good cameras.

Thing is why do I need an EVF?



Here's an example of how sometimes rear LCD's can be misleading colour wise

Barrie Davis said:

PerL said:

Honestly, the lack of DR is a problem. The first time I looked through a Sony A77 OLED EVF was at a presentation where they had put all the new cameras and other stuff, mostly in black or silver colors, on a white table. The sun was shining through the windows so the light was very contrasty. Almost everything was blown out white or blocked out black in the Sony state-of-the-art EVF viewfinder. Ironicly, when I switched to the DSLR with OVF I had with me, I could see everything as clear as with my eyes. Just a simple example.

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued. How come you have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

If I cant see what I shoot it is a problem. And the sensor sees much better than the EVF. Things you can easiliy fix with a little PP thanks to the big DR of the sensor can be hard to see with the EVF.

Barrie Davis said:

The viewfinder system you described is one that FOREWARNS of the precise parts of the image that are most like to burst through sensor DR limits to burn out or clog up in the contrasty lighting.

From a logical point of view, I think such viewfinder behaviour counts as a considerable benefit, by providing real-time update on one of the things it is most useful to know in digital photography.

Seriously, I find your kind of backwards thinking leaves the anti-EVF position looking extremely weak. Or, put another way, I think you need your logic module pulling out, turning over, and putting back in again. ;-)
--

Click to expand...

Try to keep it nice and civil, please. I do.

Barrie Davis said:

Regards,
Baz

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

Click to expand...

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

PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

I'm intrigued. How come you have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

If I cant see what I shoot it is a problem. And the sensor sees much better than the EVF. Things you can easiliy fix with a little PP thanks to the big DR of the sensor can be hard to see with the EVF.

Click to expand...

So, if the sensor sees much better DR than the EVF in contrasty lighting, then the more limited DR of the EVF provides a built-in safety factor, doesn't it? (sigh)

PerL said:

PerL said:

Seriously, I find your kind of backwards thinking leaves the anti-EVF position looking extremely weak. Or, put another way, I think you need your logic module pulling out, turning over, and putting back in again. ;-)
--

Click to expand...

Try to keep it nice and civil, please. I do.

Click to expand...

That IS my idea of being civil, but with a little teasing humour. ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

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

Barrie Davis said:

PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

I'm intrigued. How come you have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

If I cant see what I shoot it is a problem. And the sensor sees much better than the EVF. Things you can easiliy fix with a little PP thanks to the big DR of the sensor can be hard to see with the EVF.

Click to expand...

So, if the sensor sees much better DR than the EVF in contrasty lighting, then the more limited DR of the EVF provides a built-in safety factor, doesn't it? (sigh)

Barrie Davis said:

Barrie Davis said:

Seriously, I find your kind of backwards thinking leaves the anti-EVF position looking extremely weak. Or, put another way, I think you need your logic module pulling out, turning over, and putting back in again. ;-)
--

Click to expand...

Try to keep it nice and civil, please. I do.

Click to expand...

That IS my idea of being civil, but with a little teasing humour. ;-)

Click to expand...

OK - no problem...

I think I have motivated in several posts why I think the the limited DR in the EVF vs the larger of the sensor is not a good thing, although I think most of it would be rather obvious.

Barrie Davis said:

--
Regards,
Baz

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

Click to expand...

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

T3 said:

Lee, we all know that you wish EVF's would go away forever,...

Click to expand...

You're a liar, you know that?

As I've told you, repeatedly, I like them much better than LCDs, and I have two cameras with EVFs. They're still second best to OVFs (a distant second).

Besides, it's YOU who wishes that OVFs would go away forever.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

EVF v OVF is getting very boring. Nobody is going to win the argument so why don't we just waiting for 5 years and see what happens.

For an exciting change, how about "Film v. Digital" or even "How many MPs are equivalent to 35mm film".
--
Chris R

PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

PerL said:

Barrie Davis said:

I'm intrigued. How come you have a problem with that?

Click to expand...

If I cant see what I shoot it is a problem. And the sensor sees much better than the EVF. Things you can easiliy fix with a little PP thanks to the big DR of the sensor can be hard to see with the EVF.

Click to expand...

So, if the sensor sees much better DR than the EVF in contrasty lighting, then the more limited DR of the EVF provides a built-in safety factor, doesn't it? (sigh)

PerL said:

PerL said:

Seriously, I find your kind of backwards thinking leaves the anti-EVF position looking extremely weak. Or, put another way, I think you need your logic module pulling out, turning over, and putting back in again. ;-)
--

Click to expand...

Try to keep it nice and civil, please. I do.

Click to expand...

That IS my idea of being civil, but with a little teasing humour. ;-)

Click to expand...

OK - no problem...

I think I have motivated in several posts why I think the the limited DR in the EVF vs the larger of the sensor is not a good thing, although I think most of it would be rather obvious.

Click to expand...

Have you ever used a viewfinder that is composed of just two pencil lines drawn in a 'V' shape on top of the camera? Take it from me, that is a viewfinder that has serious shortcomings....
--
Regards,
Baz

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

ljfinger said:

As I've told you, repeatedly, I like them much better than LCDs, and I have two cameras with EVFs. They're still second best to OVFs (a distant second).

Click to expand...

Lee, imagine yourself having a conversation with a younger photographer 10 or 15 years from now. This younger photographers has been shooting all his life with the latest EVF cameras. In fact, he's never even handled an OVF camera before, because by the year 2022 most photographers are using EVF cameras much like most photographers in the year 2012 are using digital cameras. So you decide to show him your old OVF DSLR. He picks up your camera, looks through its viewfinder, and says...

Him: How do you adjust the viewfinder brightness?
You: You can't.

H: How do you turn on real-time exposure preview?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you turn on focus peaking?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you turn on focus magnification?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you change viewfinder aspect ratio?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you activate the viewfinder's real-time histogram?
Y: There is none.

H: How do I apply a tone curve to the viewfinder image?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you switch the viewfinder to black-and-white mode (for black-and-white pre-visualization)?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you review images inside the viewfinder?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you activate face detection AF or face tracking?
Y: You can't.

H: How come the camera is so noisy when you take a picture?

Y: That's because the mirror inside it is flapping up and down every time you take a picture.
H: The what is flapping up and down? A mirror?!?

H: How come the viewfinder blacks out every time you take a picture?
Y: That's because the mirror blocks the viewfinder every time you take a picture

H: How do you shoot video while using the viewfinder?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you replay video inside the viewfinder?
Y: You can't.

H: How do you tilt the viewfinder up or down?
Y: You can't.

H: How come the viewfinder is so small?

Y: That's because with an OVF the viewfinder size is basically proportional to the size of your sensor format. Larger sensors have larger OVF's, smaller sensors have smaller OVF's.
H: Wow, that sucks!

H: How come the view I see in the viewfinder is darker than the scene I see in front of the camera?

Y: That's because only a portion of the light in the scene actually makes it to your eye, after the light passes through the lens glass, through the lens aperture, bounces off the reflex mirror, then makes its way through the optical viewfinder to your eye. And there's no method of light amplification in an OVF.

H: How come this camera doesn't have 100% frame coverage?
Y: Unlike EVF cameras, not all OVF cameras have 100% frame coverage.

Y: But trust me, OVF's are waaaay better than EVF's. EVF's are a distant second to OVF's.

H: Okaaaay. Sure, old-timer. Uh...thanks for showing me your OVF camera, mister. I think I'll go back to using my EVF camera now.

++++++

The crazy thing is that many of these things are already true. Just imagine what things will be like in the year 2022 or 2027!

Your youngster is more interested in a pretty picture through the VF than in getting good images.

How about this:

Youngster: "How the heck did you ever get this image since they're way too fast to follow in the viewfinder?"

Me: "Use a faster viewfinder."



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)