Most people who criticize SLT haven´t certainly used one...

Some thoughts about this debate, putting technical and irrelevant issues aside.

I just cannot believe that most people who openly criticize SLTs have ever thoroughly used one...

Unless you are a Sports shooter or a Photojournalist, SLTs are the best way to be able to forget the camera while you are shooting. A camera is supposed to be an extension of you, a third eye looking to create compelling images. When you use an OVF, the camera is actually trying to be "you", instead of approaching you to the final image.

SLTs, EVFs and seamless live view integration approximate you to the product you are creating, making the creative process much more intuitive and productive, due to a much higher degree of freedom.

Now I just look through my EVF or LCD, press the shutter, and I just instinctively know what I´ve captured, and can carry on, with no need to constantly review what I´ve shot, with no need to constantly disconnect from the capturing process.

--
José Ramos
Official website - http://www.joseramos.com
(nature/landscape photography)

Facebook photography page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jos%C3%A9-Ramos-Nature-Landscape-Photography/374632662867?v=wall
Redbubble page - http://www.redbubble.com/people/joseramos
Deviantart - http://inebriantia.deviantart.com

Yes, I believe you described the use of a SLT better than I could have put into words myself. The SLT really is an extension of your eye. Whether you put your eye to the viewfinder or want to take a "step back" and look at the LCD screen, the picture taking process is seamless. The people that have critisized it probably never really gave it a chance or just took a short demo in the store.

I can take a picture with a SLT and with 99% confidence know that my exposure is correct without having to review it as what you see is what you get. It's hard to understand the complaints of the viewfinder about blown out highlights or dark areas when that is exactly what the sensor sees and that's what your picture is going to look like that anyways. I think it must be wonderful from a photographer's standpoint that your eye can see the great contrast between the sun, sky and trees but when you click that shutter, you didn't even realize your exposure is off as the super clear OVF gave you no feedback.

Having used traditional SLR's where you had to take a pictures first and then review it before you even know whether your exposure settings are correct, this is a breath of fresh air.

Do any of these "technical" problems like viewfinder grain or 1/3 stop more noise in high ISO actually prevent you from taking real life pictures? Or do they prevent you from taking pictures of test charts and black hallways? I think these are rhetorical questions.

Which cameras do you use??

I shoot exclusively in RAW, mainly outdoors portraits with strong back lights and the SLT cameras are near useless to frame correctly. Histogram is also useless as is not close to what is captured in the RAW file.

Sony needs to increase DR in EVF and provide a real RAW histogram to make it somewhat useful to me. And of course an option to remove the mirror from the light path...

--
Regards,
Juan

My online portfolio
http://www.endosphoto.com

PhotoFan247 said:

Yes, I believe you described the use of a SLT better than I could have put into words myself. The SLT really is an extension of your eye. Whether you put your eye to the viewfinder or want to take a "step back" and look at the LCD screen, the picture taking process is seamless. The people that have critisized it probably never really gave it a chance or just took a short demo in the store.

I can take a picture with a SLT and with 99% confidence know that my exposure is correct without having to review it as what you see is what you get. It's hard to understand the complaints of the viewfinder about blown out highlights or dark areas when that is exactly what the sensor sees and that's what your picture is going to look like that anyways. I think it must be wonderful from a photographer's standpoint that your eye can see the great contrast between the sun, sky and trees but when you click that shutter, you didn't even realize your exposure is off as the super clear OVF gave you no feedback.

Having used traditional SLR's where you had to take a pictures first and then review it before you even know whether your exposure settings are correct, this is a breath of fresh air.

Do any of these "technical" problems like viewfinder grain or 1/3 stop more noise in high ISO actually prevent you from taking real life pictures? Or do they prevent you from taking pictures of test charts and black hallways? I think these are rhetorical questions.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

I used a Konica Minolta A2 for a long long time and I just loved it. Then photography became more than a hobby and I needed more image quality and ultra wide angle. I was extremely reluctant to give up on "live view" but I bought a Pentax K10d and a Sigma 10-20mm.

The Pentax helped me in getting better images, but the shooting process wasn´t half as pleasant. Looking through the OVF when the camera was on the tripod, in awkward positions, became a contortionist work. Tilted images, badly exposed images, bad exposed ones, became much more frequent. Improving technique would definitely allow a higher rate of "keepers" (and it did), but the process was no longer fluid and smooth as it used to be.

Enter SLTs, and then all of a sudden I returned to my A2, but with a much better sensor and great image quality...

--
José Ramos
Official website - http://www.joseramos.com
(nature/landscape photography)

Facebook photography page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jos%C3%A9-Ramos-Nature-Landscape-Photography/374632662867?v=wall
Redbubble page - http://www.redbubble.com/people/joseramos
Deviantart - http://inebriantia.deviantart.com

PhotoFan247 said:

Having used traditional SLR's where you had to take a pictures first and then review it before you even know whether your exposure settings are correct, this is a breath of fresh air.

Click to expand...

Actually the more experienced photographers know if their exposure settings are correct before they even use the viewfinder. Worrying over exposure settings while one should be composing indicates a beginner.

More experienced photographers also know that the EVF/LCD system of the SLT often does not provide a true view of the photograph the camera will produce. It provides somewhere in between the scene and the final photograph.

But if you have only simple requirements for your photography like P&S maybe you are satisfied with that.

Endos said:

I shoot exclusively in RAW, mainly outdoors portraits with strong back lights and the SLT cameras are near useless to frame correctly. Histogram is also useless as is not close to what is captured in the RAW file.

Sony needs to increase DR in EVF and provide a real RAW histogram to make it somewhat useful to me. And of course an option to remove the mirror from the light path...

--
Regards,
Juan

Click to expand...

Of course it´s my opinion. I never stated otherwise.

Anyway, I can imagine you could see a little more image detail under those conditions with an OVF, but call SLTs "useless" for that kind of photos absolutely contradicts my experience. I prefer to see clipped highlights on some situations and know that what I see is nearer to what I´ll get, than use an OVF which doesn´t represent the final image.

You don´t need to fully rely on the histogram, it is just meant to be used as a tool to roughly evaluate exposure, to check for clearly over or under-exposed images. And you said you shoot raw, so you can always compensate in post-processing. I can´t see how having histogram is worse than not having it.

But wait... I said I was putting technical issues aside... Well, back to photography.

... have stopped doing so now, and moved to a different camera brand.

WaltKnapp said:

Actually the more experienced photographers know if their exposure settings are correct before they even use the viewfinder. Worrying over exposure settings while one should be composing indicates a beginner.

More experienced photographers also know that the EVF/LCD system of the SLT often does not provide a true view of the photograph the camera will produce. It provides somewhere in between the scene and the final photograph.

But if you have only simple requirements for your photography like P&S maybe you are satisfied with that.

Click to expand...

Yeah right. The more experienced photographers don´t even need to actually look through the viewfinder, they just touch the camera and "feel" the scene. They put it on manual mode and they instinctively know which shutter speed to use for any scene, without any kind of metering.

They also tend to feel extremely annoyed when they see young folks with 2-3 years of experience making great images with these new fancy ugly tools called "mirrorless", "nex", and such, which suddenly made capturing an image much more intuitive.

And now, back to my point and shoot world...

--
José Ramos
Official website - http://www.joseramos.com
(nature/landscape photography)

Facebook photography page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jos%C3%A9-Ramos-Nature-Landscape-Photography/374632662867?v=wall
Redbubble page - http://www.redbubble.com/people/joseramos
Deviantart - http://inebriantia.deviantart.com

sybersitizen said:

... have stopped doing so now, and moved to a different camera brand.

Click to expand...

I hope that would be true...

--
José Ramos
Official website - http://www.joseramos.com
(nature/landscape photography)

Facebook photography page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jos%C3%A9-Ramos-Nature-Landscape-Photography/374632662867?v=wall
Redbubble page - http://www.redbubble.com/people/joseramos
Deviantart - http://inebriantia.deviantart.com

I want to spend my time and effort and learning on getting the photographs I want, not the technology to do so. The easier it is for me to create the photo that I envision, the better it is for me.

Here's a fun one from me, taken yesterday with my A77. I saw the tiny yellow flowers and wanted to see the light going through their leaves. I was running around playing with my 90mm macro lens. I love EVFs!



It really is tiresome to constantly hear lectures about how if we only knew "photography" better we would just love our OVF and eschew EVF.

WaltKnapp said:

Actually the more experienced photographers know if their exposure settings are correct before they even use the viewfinder. Worrying over exposure settings while one should be composing indicates a beginner.

More experienced photographers also know that the EVF/LCD system of the SLT often does not provide a true view of the photograph the camera will produce. It provides somewhere in between the scene and the final photograph.

But if you have only simple requirements for your photography like P&S maybe you are satisfied with that.

Click to expand...

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

Endos said:

I shoot exclusively in RAW, mainly outdoors portraits with strong back lights and the SLT cameras are near useless to frame correctly. Histogram is also useless as is not close to what is captured in the RAW file.

Sony needs to increase DR in EVF and provide a real RAW histogram to make it somewhat useful to me. And of course an option to remove the mirror from the light path...

--
Regards,
Juan

My online portfolio
http://www.endosphoto.com

Click to expand...

I thought the histograms on the cameras were almost always useless when shooting RAW since the histograms are based on what the JPEG output would have have been based on the current settings, regardless of whether or not JPEG is being captured. So that isn't a flaw of EVF based cameras, that is a known factor of almost all digital cameras that have a RAW option.

Here are some interesting articles that describes some of what I am mentioning:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms4.htm
and
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
--
Paul

JudyN said:

I want to spend my time and effort and learning on getting the photographs I want, not the technology to do so. The easier it is for me to create the photo that I envision, the better it is for me.

Here's a fun one from me, taken yesterday with my A77. I saw the tiny yellow flowers and wanted to see the light going through their leaves. I was running around playing with my 90mm macro lens. I love EVFs!



It really is tiresome to constantly hear lectures about how if we only knew "photography" better we would just love our OVF and eschew EVF.

Click to expand...

Now let´s imagine that this flower was actually only 20cm high above the ground, and there was a rock right in front of it. Shooting it would be extremely difficult without the articulated LCD, which suddenly made an improbable photo possible.

Now let´s imagine that the light isn´t that interesting to begin with, but when you look through the EVF you actually see that over-exposing or adjusting white balance will create a striking image. This might make the difference betweeing opting to press the shutter or not. You do it in real time, you feel close to the end result.

I doubt I ever will be an expert but your opinon is your own. You can choose two out of the three exposure settings first but how can you dial in the third without looking at the meter? Do you just guess the third from experience/old age? Or do you only take pictures in the same spot at the same time in the same weather all the time?

There is a DOF button the Sony SLT's have which I call the cheat button which lets me preview an image with DOF, in camera lens correction, and exposure. Oh btw, it doesn't make the viewfinder go darker like in OVF's. I'll happily rely on the EVF and LCD screen in real time to let me know if my expsoure setting are close to what I want to get out of the final image.

My requirements are simple, take a good picture. Yours are who knows, do it the old fashioned way and rely on years of guessing, I mean experience?

WaltKnapp said:

PhotoFan247 said:

Having used traditional SLR's where you had to take a pictures first and then review it before you even know whether your exposure settings are correct, this is a breath of fresh air.

Click to expand...

Actually the more experienced photographers know if their exposure settings are correct before they even use the viewfinder. Worrying over exposure settings while one should be composing indicates a beginner.

More experienced photographers also know that the EVF/LCD system of the SLT often does not provide a true view of the photograph the camera will produce. It provides somewhere in between the scene and the final photograph.

But if you have only simple requirements for your photography like P&S maybe you are satisfied with that.

Click to expand...

José Ramos said:

Endos said:

I shoot exclusively in RAW, mainly outdoors portraits with strong back lights and the SLT cameras are near useless to frame correctly. Histogram is also useless as is not close to what is captured in the RAW file.

Sony needs to increase DR in EVF and provide a real RAW histogram to make it somewhat useful to me. And of course an option to remove the mirror from the light path...

--
Regards,
Juan

Click to expand...

Anyway, I can imagine you could see a little more image detail under those conditions with an OVF, but call SLTs "useless" for that kind of photos absolutely contradicts my experience. I prefer to see clipped highlights on some situations and know that what I see is nearer to what I´ll get, than use an OVF which doesn´t represent the final image.

Click to expand...

Nor the EVF, but, at least, with an OVF you see the entire scene.

José Ramos said:

You don´t need to fully rely on the histogram, it is just meant to be used as a tool to roughly evaluate exposure, to check for clearly over or under-exposed images.

Click to expand...

This can be seen easily with any DSLR light meter.

José Ramos said:

And you said you shoot raw, so you can always compensate in post-processing.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not the right way.

José Ramos said:

I can´t see how having histogram is worse than not having it.

Click to expand...

Having wrong info is normally worse than not having info at all.
--
Regards,
Juan

My online portfolio
http://www.endosphoto.com

All my questioning to one of the critics about what how the shortcomings of the EVF prevented it from being as useful as (if not more than) an OVF lead to being insulted..

I was browsing through a local electronics store several months ago and saw an A55, and thought I'd take a look at it, as I was considering upgrading my A330. I was unaware before picking it up about what the new SLT design was all about, and was initially a little put off by the viewfinder. On some settings, it was blacking out, others it was fine, and there was a slight lag and some pixelation when shifting the view too fast. Everything else about the camera was pretty impressive though, and at the time my attention was split between the camera and my 3 year old so I didn't put much thought into the issue with the viewfinder.

When I was at home later, I started reading some reviews about the camera and began to understand what I noticed on the viewfinder. It was blacking out when the scene would have been drastically underexposed (the store wasn't very well lit).

And I went back and looked again, and liked it a bit more, but still wasn't too sure. Reading some more about it, I found references to the upcoming A77 release, and decided to wait and check that out. When it was released, the closest anyone had for a display was the A65, but I figured it would be the same viewfinder. And I was pretty impressed, it still wasn't as bright and unfailing as an OVF, but I figured it was good enough and I ordered an A77.

6 months and thousands of photos later, I love it. I'm a heavy user of focus peaking (with DMF) and the zoom for manual focusing. I do a fair amount of street photography at night, and the apparent loss of 1/3 a stop of light is, in my opinion, more than made up for in knowing my exposure works without stopping to review on the lcd. The only thing that really blows any of my photos anymore is the shutter speed being too slow for people moving, the A77 just makes it so easy to know the exposure and focus are correct.

Which brought me to the argument I had with with EVF critic insulting me... He lead with the lack of contrast arguments, and how it wasn't as bright or clear as the OVF. I started asking what he was doing with his camera that the contrast and clarity on his viewfinder was so important? I use the viewfinder to frame the scene, focus my lens, and with EVF validate my exposure. The only reason I could understand someone needing that high end OVF brightness and clarity to do that would be for manual focusing, but in my opinion peaking and the zoom more than make up for that.

Which lead to a remark about how I must have never used a camera before....

Endos said:

Nor the EVF, but, at least, with an OVF you see the entire scene.

Click to expand...

If you want to look at more than the VF shows, open your other eye.

Endos said:

This can be seen easily with any DSLR light meter.

Click to expand...

With substantially less precision, yes. Having an RGB histogram is vastly more useable information than what a light meter provides, if you spend the effort to learn how to use it.

Endos said:

Yes, but that's not the right way.

Click to expand...

As long as the results end up good what does it matter if the "wrong" or "right" way to get there was used??

Endos said:

Having wrong info is normally worse than not having info at all.

Click to expand...

Not if the limitations of the information are known and can be taken into account. I can understand you not caring to learn a new tool, but from there to condemn it as useless (or wrong) simply does not follow.

Jesper

cplunk said:

All my questioning to one of the critics about what how the shortcomings of the EVF prevented it from being as useful as (if not more than) an OVF lead to being insulted..

Click to expand...

I´m still getting familiar with the insult issue. I guess it´s not easy to have little experience or no portfolio, to come here with legitimate doubts, and then be bashed by "experienced" photographers, which actually forgot to create a striking portfolio with that experience.

As to lack of clarity, I admit it might exist in some situations, but the same could be said of an OVF when it´s too dark and you want to make long exposures.

I can do long exposures with a 10 stop filter on, and actually be able to compose through the EVF or LCD. Try to do that with an OVF...

VirtualMirage said:

I thought the histograms on the cameras were almost always useless when shooting RAW since the histograms are based on what the JPEG output would have have been based on the current settings, regardless of whether or not JPEG is being captured. So that isn't a flaw of EVF based cameras, that is a known factor of almost all digital cameras that have a RAW option.

Here are some interesting articles that describes some of what I am mentioning:
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/histograms/histograms4.htm
and
http://ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
--
Paul

Click to expand...

It's a flaw in SLT cameras because one of his "advantages" is to see the histogram before you shot.

I use uniWB in my A900 to get an accurate RAW histogram. Unfortunately it can't be set in SLT cameras, at least in the A55 and A33. I have not tried if it can be set in A65/A77.

--
Regards,
Juan

My online portfolio
http://www.endosphoto.com

theswede said:

Endos said:

Nor the EVF, but, at least, with an OVF you see the entire scene.

Click to expand...

If you want to look at more than the VF shows, open your other eye.

theswede #100093 said:

This can be seen easily with any DSLR light meter.

Click to expand...

With substantially less precision, yes. Having an RGB histogram is vastly more useable information than what a light meter provides, if you spend the effort to learn how to use it.

theswede #100093 said:

Yes, but that's not the right way.

Click to expand...

As long as the results end up good what does it matter if the "wrong" or "right" way to get there was used??

theswede #100093 said:

Having wrong info is normally worse than not having info at all.

Click to expand...

Not if the limitations of the information are known and can be taken into account. I can understand you not caring to learn a new tool, but from there to condemn it as useless (or wrong) simply does not follow.

Jesper

Click to expand...

And then all of a sudden I´m starting to see there are people here who are like-minded. ;-)