"Mirrorless" is the future???

Started Feb 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
cedrec Regular Member • Posts: 328
Re: It's obviouse, isn't it? (NT)

Alex Sarbu wrote:

cedrec wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

It has the advantage of direct, optical viewing.

It is the OVF who will show you "exactly what their lenses are capturing", not the EVF. The EVF will only show an approximation of what the final (heavily processed) result could look like.

Although that's true, I'd rather see "exactly what my camera is capturing" than what the lens is capturing. It's really nice having the exposure simulation that any EVF or LCD can provide. It takes a lot of guesswork out of all types of shooting, especially manual. OVFs can't do this.

That's the funny thing - you can't.

Is your EVF color calibrated? What's its DR, is it enough? Do you only shoot JPEG with no off-camera processing whatsoever?

And you have an exposure meter inside the camera... it's not exactly "guesswork"

I gotcha Alex ;). I don't think you're fully getting me. In my mind, trained by years of seeing the world clearly only through glasses, and then side-tracked for several years playing with digital point-and-shoots, the viewfinder is there primarily to compose the shot, secondarily check the focus, and tertiarily to preview the exposure. I trust my camera with a lot of the other stuff, and my skills in post to touch-up the rest.

We're not shooting onto film here. What's being captured by the sensor in a preview can be consistently displayed on an LCD, in real time. Whether the LCD is calibrated or not is a legitimate concern, but IMO a moot one. With an EVF you might be misled by a mis-calibrated screen (I think you're exaggerating by how much, but that doesn't matter), but with an OVF, you aren't even getting that feedback. It's all about how you use it. You can shoot with an OVF or an EVF and still rely on the camera's metering. The only difference that matters to me is when you see the exposure preview, and I like seeing it before I take the shot.

I bet there are very few digital photographers on this board shooting manually for real--with a spot meter and the zone system--because there isn't a real need for it with digital instant feedback.

I'm rather lukewarm to OVFs on DSLRs for manual focusing. Unless you replace the focusing screen, you typically can't use them for manual focusing. Even with a split-image focusing screen, they're still not as accurate of tools for manual focusing as a good EVF with focus peaking or image magnification.

With a good (reflex) OVF you can. Indeed, image magnification is better if you have the time.

I couldn't manually focus my 5D2 through the OVF without replacing the focusing screen, and even with a split-image screen I have to admit that it's inferior to the focus-assist features that an EVF can provide. I thought that the 5D2 was supposedly a good camera, so I'm not sure how "good" we have to go to find one that has a useable focusing screen right out of the box...maybe I'm looking at the wrong brands?

The only advantage I personally see for OVFs is that they do not run down the battery. That's a pretty big advantage for a lot of people, but I'd also be curious as to how much more battery power is drained by the shutter + mirror lift actuation of a DSLR than the simple shutter actuation of a mirrorless camera. My eyes just aren't good enough to appreciate any difference between real life and the resolution of a modern EVF.

This is one advantage, yes. No power when composing, and very little for the actual exposure. Is there any EVF camera which can easily go past 1000 exposures on a single charge?

I would wager the answer is no. Not without a very, very large battery. On the other hand, DSLRs do tend to have physically larger batteries than mirrorless cameras of all kinds, so how much more efficient are they really? The battery of my 5D2 is 25-30% larger than the NEX battery. How much of the size difference translates to extra capacity, however, is beyond my expertise.

However, viewing static subjects with a static camera is one thing; put some motion and you'll see the difference.

Fair enough. In the end, it still comes down to whether that difference (and the many other trade-offs in image quality, like high ISO noise and low shutter speed lag) really matter to you in taking pictures. For my three expectations of a VF, as stated above, the trade-off is perfectly acceptable, but that's just me.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow