Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
José Ramos said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can looking through an electronic device be closer to the world, with less interpretation, than looking directly at the real world though glass?

How does a real OVF fool you, while a fake LCD display tells you the truth?

Isn't it the EVF that is "trying to approach the final image?"
José Ramos said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd actually agree with this to a certain extent. Its just whether the advantages outweigh the shortcomings. With an OVF, anything I can see with my eye I can shoot.
José Ramos said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, there is some truth here. But I don't think it's this simple. I typically review at high magnification to check focus, motion blur, noise, etc. I suspect you still have to do so with an EVF. Certain you might need to see if you captured the "moment," if your subject didn't blink, etc.

With either viewfinder it's always good to review at higher magnifications. And with either it's not necessary when you have a high confidence the shot is correct. Trust me, with up to 2000 images for event photography, I don't stop to review. May not take my eyes away from my OVF for minutes at a time. I'm in the flow. Sounds like you are as well. That's fine, but I don't see how either system is significantly different.
 
Rand 47 said:
I don't think SLT/EVF is bad. I just don't prefer it.

Some of us would rather look out our window to see the reality of our back yard, than to watch a closed circuit video image of our back yard on TV, no matter how good that reproduction of reality may be.
Click to expand...
it will be a long time before any digital screen can match what direct light can do with my eyes.
 
Rand 47 said:
I don't think SLT/EVF is bad. I just don't prefer it.

Some of us would rather look out our window to see the reality of our back yard, than to watch a closed circuit video image of our back yard on TV, no matter how good that reproduction of reality may be.
Click to expand...
But you don't spend your time looking exclusively through the VF. You look around with your eyes.

You only put the camera to your face when you want to take a picture. Its not a bad idea that you see things when you use the camera the way the camera sees them, because then you have an insite as to if what the camera sees is consistent with what your eyes see.
 
tko said:
tko said:
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.
Click to expand...
How can looking through an electronic device be closer to the world, with less interpretation, than looking directly at the real world though glass?

How does a real OVF fool you, while a fake LCD display tells you the truth?

Isn't it the EVF that is "trying to approach the final image?"
tko said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd actually agree with this to a certain extent. Its just whether the advantages outweigh the shortcomings. With an OVF, anything I can see with my eye I can shoot.
Click to expand...
i dont know about others, but when im taking a picture, im trying to copy what my eyes see into a picture that i can save. this is why i do minimal PP, i like to keep it true to reality. once sensors can faithfully reproduce exactly what our eyes can see of the real world, we will WANT that OVF. sensors will always be beyond what our screens can display, and this is where OVF are valuable.
tko said:
tko said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, there is some truth here. But I don't think it's this simple. I typically review at high magnification to check focus, motion blur, noise, etc. I suspect you still have to do so with an EVF. Certain you might need to see if you captured the "moment," if your subject didn't blink, etc.

With either viewfinder it's always good to review at higher magnifications. And with either it's not necessary when you have a high confidence the shot is correct. Trust me, with up to 2000 images for event photography, I don't stop to review. May not take my eyes away from my OVF for minutes at a time. I'm in the flow. Sounds like you are as well. That's fine, but I don't see how either system is significantly different.
Click to expand...
 
Before you owned the camera, you found it quite a significant shortcoming for using ultra wide angle lenses in video, right?

Good to hear that finally handling this great tool convinced you of the better.
--
Cheers,
Ralf
http://www.ralfralph.smugmug.com
 
Ralf Bliesener said:
Before you owned the camera, you found it quite a significant shortcoming for using ultra wide angle lenses in video, right?

Good to hear that finally handling this great tool convinced you of the better.
--
Click to expand...
I just hate the crop. It´s even bigger than I thougt. 10mm are converted to 14mm, which is a HUGE difference. It´s incredible how Sony didn´t allow to disable the crop when stabilization is turned off.

I´m only accepting it because my girlfriend stayed with my a55, so I can still shoot ultra wide when I need.

--
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
 
Meshuggah said:
i dont know about others
Click to expand...
That's pretty evident, but it's good you realize this as well.
Meshuggah said:
when im taking a picture, im trying to copy what my eyes see into a picture that i can save.
Click to expand...
When I'm taking a picture I'm trying to tell a story. If all I wanted was to "copy what my eyes see" I'd use my phone camera. Since my eyes see only a very tiny field of vision with rather bad sharpness and optical characteristics (read up on human vision sometime) that would still be too good to actually do that.
Meshuggah said:
this is why i do minimal PP, i like to keep it true to reality.
Click to expand...
Reality as seen by our eyes is subjective. Your choice is not the only valid way to reach an image which matches how our minds are impacted by a scene.
Meshuggah said:
once sensors can faithfully reproduce exactly what our eyes can see of the real world
Click to expand...
That is a physical impossibility. Our brains build the image we have of "the real world" in a way which a camera can never capture.

Ever.
Meshuggah said:
we will WANT that OVF. sensors will always be beyond what our screens can display, and this is where OVF are valuable.
Click to expand...
So ... you expect sensors to be able to capture "what you see", but you expect there to be no way for you to then view that captured image?

Jesper
 
cplunk said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have hit the nail on the head here.

I have used many film SLR's in the past and grew up with nothing but OVF's. Back then when a new camera came out sometimes they would advance the state of the art as regards the viewfinder and what that boiled down to was producing a brighter and/or more contrasty viewfinder that made focusing easier (we are talking pre-AF here as well). Not once did anyone mention colour rendition or anything else. It was all down to whether or not the VF made focusing easier.

Everyone back then knew if you shot slide film the contrast was limited so knew what they were seeing in the VF was simply the composition of the shot and nothing like what it was going to be rendered as on the film in terms of colour and dynamic range. This is no different today with OVF's.

As you say the VF was used to frame the shot and for focusing. That is it and that is all OVF's can be used for today.

EVF's however give you an accurate view of the exposure and white balance as well as the same or better compositional and focusing aids as an OVF.
cplunk said:
Which lead to a remark about how I must have never used a camera before....
Click to expand...
Hah!
 
theswede said:
Endos said:
That is to deny the real problem, and get a serious headache.
Click to expand...
I don't get a headache from that. Maybe you have a vision problem? And anyway, if you can properly articulate "the real problem" then perhaps it can be solved?
Click to expand...
As I don't use a SLT camera with both eyes at the same time, I don't have any vision problem, nor headaches or other brain problems. :)
theswede #100093 said:
theswede #100093 said:
The main problem with the inaccurate histograms in RAW is because the camera apply the WB settings and this distorts the real RGB values.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, you can't control camera WB. I forgot, you haven't learned your tools.

=P
Click to expand...
Yes I can, with nearly any DSLR in the market, but unfortunately not with SLT cameras.
theswede #100093 said:
theswede #100093 said:
No mater the effort you can spend to learn it because is impossible to predict the result.
Click to expand...
Only if you don't wish to learn how to use the tools.
Click to expand...
As I don't want to lose all my life trying to figure out how to do it, I will wait a someone PhD thesis to learn it much faster.
theswede #100093 said:
theswede #100093 said:
It's not about learning or not a new tool, is about that the results are not constant and can't be predicted, no matter the time you spend with it.
Click to expand...
That is opinion, not fact. The results can be predicted, if you wish to spend the time learning. It is evident you don't. Fine, then don't. But please stop getting in the way of the people that do.

Jesper
Click to expand...
Please, write a white paper explaining how to do it to illustrate the rest of the world... ;)
--
Regards,
Juan

My online portfolio
http://www.endosphoto.com
 
Meshuggah said:
i dont know about others, but when im taking a picture, im trying to copy what my eyes see into a picture that i can save. this is why i do minimal PP, i like to keep it true to reality. once sensors can faithfully reproduce exactly what our eyes can see of the real world, we will WANT that OVF. sensors will always be beyond what our screens can display, and this is where OVF are valuable.
Click to expand...
Since when has a camera ever shown exactly what we have seen?

What you say is open to interpretation. Film with its unique chemical characteristics had a different look with each type. Lens coatings effect color and contrast. Even legendary photographers like Ansel Adams relied on post processing in the dark room to get photos to look the way he wanted them to, not necessarily how the subject actually looked.

Perception is an individualistic trait. What you see is not what I see and no amount of technology is going to be able to mimic that to perfection.

If you feel that an EVF constrains your ability to capture the image you want, then it is most likely you who is the limiting factor. You are able to view your subject outside of the viewfinder (so you know what your scene looks like), composition isn't going to be effected with an EVF or OVF. What you need is to learn the fundamentals of photography, lighting, color, exposure, etc. Once you grasp that, then you should be able to apply it with great success no matter what equipment you are using.

Besides, at the end of the day where will you be showing your pictures? On the PC, printed, the web? Certainly you are not displaying your photos through a viewfinder.

As much as you mention how EVFs limit your view and that you want an OVF and want semi-pro equipment, you sure do seem to pine for a camera that does everything for you and envision what you see with no work or effort put in by yourself. That's like saying "I don't want a car with an automatic or DSG transmission. But I do want a car with a 6 speed manual and clutch pedal that shifts itself."

You can't have everything handed to you on a silver platter. If you want something to look good, YOU have to put work into it. That's right, you are responsible for the quality of your work. The camera can only do so much and it alone isn't going to make you an Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Steve McCurry, or Dorthea Lange.
--
Paul
 
Endos said:
As I don't want to lose all my life trying to figure out how to do it, I will wait a someone PhD thesis to learn it much faster.
Click to expand...
Fair enough! (^.^)
Endos said:
Please, write a white paper explaining how to do it to illustrate the rest of the world... ;)
Click to expand...
If I get paid enough I'll do that! =D

Jesper
 
VirtualMirage said:
when has a camera ever shown exactly what we have seen?

What you say is open to interpretation. Film with its unique chemical characteristics had a different look with each type. Lens coatings effect color and contrast. Even legendary photographers like Ansel Adams relied on post processing in the dark room to get photos to look the way he wanted them to, not necessarily how the subject actually looked.

Perception is an individualistic trait. What you see is not what I see and no amount of technology is going to be able to mimic that to perfection.

If you feel that an EVF constrains your ability to capture the image you want, then it is most likely you who is the limiting factor. You are able to view your subject outside of the viewfinder (so you know what your scene looks like), composition isn't going to be effected with an EVF or OVF. What you need is to learn the fundamentals of photography, lighting, color, exposure, etc. Once you grasp that, then you should be able to apply it with great success no matter what equipment you are using.

Besides, at the end of the day where will you be showing your pictures? On the PC, printed, the web? Certainly you are not displaying your photos through a viewfinder.

As much as you mention how EVFs limit your view and that you want an OVF and want semi-pro equipment, you sure do seem to pine for a camera that does everything for you and envision what you see with no work or effort put in by yourself. That's like saying "I don't want a car with an automatic or DSG transmission. But I do want a car with a 6 speed manual and clutch pedal that shifts itself."

You can't have everything handed to you on a silver platter. If you want something to look good, YOU have to put work into it. That's right, you are responsible for the quality of your work. The camera can only do so much and it alone isn't going to make you an Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Steve McCurry, or Dorthea Lange.
--
Paul
Click to expand...
I´m extremely glad I created this thread. Reading such sapient words is quite a pleasure.
 
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...
Funny post from you, Walt. And very arrogant as usual. When I look at your flickr page, I still do not know to what category of photographer you belong too. It is worst than any beginner's work I have seen.
 
Refocus.
Can't solve everybody's problems or unwillingness to understand.

It's like religion. The more replies you try to save the higher the devil moderator deletion rate.

There are positives for the minority. Product is in stock and the price is lower.

Get 1 expensive high Q lens each for your NEX and SLT, upgrade firmware, and you are good to go ... leave these forums.

Eventually the moderators will have to delete all of DPR since that seems the current trend. Your SLT and NEX will continue to function with perfection. :)
 
Your statement is correct. In this forum it seems that empty vessels are making a big noise. Most have never touched an SLT or at most they have picked one up in a shop just to frown on the EVF. Meanwhile those with actual hardware are out having fun. I take my A77 out with me all the time, it is fun to use. However, this weekend the air conditions look bad. So ignore or laugh at the empty vessels here and enjoy your camera and post a few photos from time to time and ask questions. As to those without Sony hardware, really if I did not shoot with a Sony I would not be in this forum.
 
I spent quite a bit of time trying to decide what macro lens to get. I had been taking "closeups" (not VERY close) with long zoom lenses at max focal length with pretty good results, but I wanted more magnification than I could get that way. But I didn't want to be so close as to block light and scare whatever it was that I was looking at. I finally decided on the Tamron 90mm macro and I love it!
surfnet said:
Beautiful. Now I know which lens is on my shopping list.
Thanks for sharing, Judy.
Click to expand...
--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top