An EVF would seem to get a lot closer to what the sensor is capturing since it's a feed from that very sensor.
The feed is a very reduced version of what the sensor detects. There is no such reduction using an OVF: you see the scene, the sensor sees the scene and each uses it in its own way. With an EVF there's the camera JPG conversion, compression and loss of DR to get in the way.
Well it seems that as EVFs get better and better there's going to be less of a differntail there.
Whatever might happen in the future we're discussing what happens now.
It seems that neither one is really a what-you-see-is-what-you get type of deal... so each one of them in their own way is bother closer and less close to the actual result.
This is a new consideration. How close the final output is to the original scene depends on several factors, most of which concern the quality of the camera and editing software (whether in-camera or external) and are independent of how well the viewfinder represents the scene.
Insofar as the camera/software is good enough to give an accurate representation of the scene, as an OVF looks directly at the scene it will be just as accurate as the camera. The EVF, however, always shows less than the sensor records so - as I said in my earlier post - it does not get close to what the sensor is capturing. This was the only point under consideration in our original exchange.
It's possible, of course, that the camera is poor and doesn't give an accurate representation of the scene.
Interesting. So your camera doesn't blow highlights
My camera blows highlights if I set the exposure too high; it doesn't blow highlights if I set exposure correctly. In that respect it's like every other camera in the world. How I set exposure has nothing to do with the type of viewfinder; using an EVF can give a
guide to the correct exposure but unless the camera's JPG conversion goes exactly to the bright end of the sensor's DR (most leave about 1.2 stop unused) it's
only a guide.
That is true.
However, here are the things that OVF supporters deny:
1) an OVF is only a "guide" in that is shows
nothing of what the camera will actually capture on the sensor - it tells you
absolutely no information, no preview of what decision the
metering has made and how that relates to the actual luminance of the scene.
OVF supporters constantly claim that the OVF has more DR than the EVF. True that. However, the sad reality is that the OVF has more DR than the sensor
itself, and therefore cannot tell the user how said sensor will interpret the scene versus how the viewer's human eye did.
This means that you are
dependent on the camera's metering to interpret the scene, because what you are seeing has no relation to what the camera itself is doing, except for a inconclusive readout of a shutter speed and aperture choice. Part of the difficulty of using a camera is being able to understand if the camera's exposure is radially incorrect for the current requirements, and that brings us to point number (2).
2) OVF supporters state that, by using the claim that an EVF will not give you a truly accurate exposure preview, the image preview isn't worthwhile. What OVF supporters constantly miss is that the EVF exposure preview (EVF image brightness) is just
one of the tools available, they constantly miss the fact and advantage that modern EVF's overlay
live data on the image.
In other words, EVF supporters constantly claim "exposure preview" and OVF supporters never believe that this is true. Between the EVF brightness preview and
live histogram overlays, possibly even
live 'blinkies' (highlilght overexposure warnings), an EVF user knows
exactly what the
sensor will capture. Forget about "what I see" (me, the operator), getting a good photograph is about understanding and interpreting how a scene will appear
in the camera.
From Zone system practitioners all the way to photography schools, the chant is understand how the
camera is viewing the scene and bring that mental image into your mind's workflow. Modern EVF's show this
directly - with the live histogram overlay, the EVF is giving you exact In Real Time readouts of what the
sensor will record and how. You use the EVF exposure brightness preview to get into the general realm of proper exposure and then use the
histogram overlay to set your exact, desired shot - no guesswork on to what the camera's metering is doing.
You know.
In the OVF workflow the only way to do this, the only way to know what the sensor actually recorded - and why it is done
constantly - is to take the shot then examine the result. The "Chimp". EVF users almost never have to "chimp"
not because of the EVF brightness preview, but because of the live histogram overlay. The same histogram that OVF users
only get during the review - the "chimp" - EVF users got
before the shot.
In difficult lighting situations an EVF is quite a bit more useful than the OVF because you can get the shot in
one shot, versus the OVF workflow of taking the shot then reviewing. The moment may possibly be lost because the camera's metering interpreted the scene
wrong, did not give you any idea except a group of 2 numbers that has low human-interpretable relationship to the scene's luminance, and you don't have the opportunity for that second shot. An EVF would have given you the same 2 numbers - shutter speed and aperture -
plus an immediately identifiable warning that you were out of your personally chosen brightness zone for the final image (the EVF's brightness)
and a directly readable graphic display of how the sensor will record the image based upon current exposure values (the histogram). One view, all data required to make an educated shot.
