Is the EVF on GX9 really worse than that on the GX7

timo wrote:

Dave Lively wrote:

timo wrote:

In fact, as a glasses wearer, the key feature for me is often the eye point. It's really frustrating when you have to press your specs up hard against the camera and then make a big effort to see into the corners of the image. That's something camera makers could address quite easily I imagine.

But probably at the cost of less magnification. I know with rifle scopes field of view vs. eye relief is design tradeoff. More of one means less of the other. The same thing probably applies to viewfinders.

With EVFs the actual size of display chip adds another variable but a large display chip would add cost, burn more power and be harder to fit into a compact body.

Why can’t they use the same VF display but make it visible through a larger hole?

Because large, high-eyepoint optics cost money too. If you want a giant field of view, companies like TeleVue Optics can make optics to provide it, but it'll cost more than the camera. Issues with field sizes and eyepiece low-viewpoints plagued telescope eyepieces for 2 hundred years, but were solved in the 1980's by companies like the one mentioned. The downside is that an old top of the line eyepiece with a narrow field size and poor "eye-relief" cost about $150 in today's dollars whereas a wide-field, highly corrected eyepiece with a high eye-point runs about $400-$1000.