no, I never said any such thing... this is what I said:
I see the scene as it is with an evf… that's why some evf displays are known for being wysiwyg.
you are suggesting that there is an advantage to seeing a blurry ovf image that can't ever match what the photo will look like, nor display what the exposure of the scene looks like.
no, you don't have a clue how a real evf camera works.
failing to post the truth about the obvious weaknesses of a ovf illustrates how biased you are.
wouldn't know it from reading some of the posts in this thread.
The sensor has one function--to convert light signals to electrical signals accurately and quickly, and to enable the speedy export of those data.
I would put it this way: because autofocus tracking systems could not otherwise function in a DSLR when the mirror is "down", auxiliary sensors and image-splitting must be added to enable focus tracking.
I find this argument quite useless. If you want to see what the scene "actually looks like", then just look at it with your bare eyes! Then look through the viewfinder to get an idea of how the camera will capture the scene! Those two things combined are far more valuable than just looking through an OVF that will just show you what your bare eyes can already see. A viewfinder should be a compositional tool, a feedback tool, an information tool that will tell you fairly precisely how the digital camera will capture the scene in front of you. If I just want see what the "scene actually looks like", I just lower the camera for a moment!
An EVF will give a pretty darn good representation of what the camera will capture. It may not be perfect, but it's far better than an OVF can do because-- aside from framing-- the OVF offers no correlation to what is being captured. Your exposure can be way off, but the what you see in the OVF doesn't represent that. Sure, OVFs have exposure scales, but in the heat of shooting it's easy to miss seeing what the exposure scale is showing because you're concentrating on the scene, and exposure scales are shoved off to the side. Also, do you know what's far more useful than an exposure scale in an OVF? Having a live histogram! A histogram in the viewfinder is far more informative and useful. For many people, having a live histogram in the viewfinder alone makes using EVFs worthwhile.
As has been stated in several posts above, each type of VF has its strengths and weaknesses.
I never wrote this (I'm sure you know that...). I wrote that there's much more dynamical range in RAW files than what you view in your EVF. On the contrary, this extra range (and possibly more) is visible through an OVF. Nobody can deny this.
I think it is a matter of taste. Personnally I will never enjoy shooting through a viewfinder cluttered by so much distracting information.
What's wrong with that? It makes sense for the focus sensors and metering sensors to be at the exact same place as the sensor plane. What doesn't make is to put these things in totally different places, scattered throughout the camera. DSLRs depend on Rube Goldberg-type contraptions relying on multiple mirrors to bounce light all around the inside of the camera in order to measure it for metering and focusing. It just doesn't make any sense to do that anymore.
The problem with a mirror is that you always have to split the light between the OVF and the separate PDAF focus module. So a separate PDAF focus system will, theoretically, always receive less light than the image sensor that is doing the focusing in a mirrorless camera. So theoretically, if an on-sensor focus sensor and a separate PDAF focus sensor are of equal sensitivity, the on-sensor focus sensor should have the advantage since it will receive more like. This is possibly why the Sony A9 is able to outperform the Nikon D5 in extreme low light autofocus (jump to 19:30 in this video):
All of these things an be done on the image chip.
For exposure, the advantage of having the image chip do the exposure is that you get real-time exposure preview shown in the viewfinder. With on-sensor autofocus, when the image sensor can see the subject, it opens up a world of possibilities regarding AI and object recognition. For example, with Sony face AF, you can not only detect faces but you can also have the camera memorize faces and prioritize them (Face Registration):
But they are rapidly diminishing as mirrorless cameras continue to mature.
It's "new" compared to OVF. The first OVF that appeared on a commercial SLR camera was in 1947 with the Rectaflex:
You are absolutely correct.
The LX100 II is not a mirrorless camera. Mirrorless cameras have interchangeable lenses. The LX100 II is a fixed-lens compact camera. Similarly, the Sony RX1 series are not a mirrorless cameras either. They are high-end fixed-lens compact cameras.
You're right. And OVFs in compact cameras have always been poor anyway. Optical viewfinders in most compact cameras have generally been not much more than little peep holes that don't offer TTL viewing.
The problem with your argument is that you seem to think that an EVF can't do this. It can and does. And it does much more as well. Furthermore, you know what else gives you a reasonable idea of what the scene actually looks like? Looking at the scene with your bare eyes! So the idea that you need an OVF to see the scene as it "actually looks like", and only an OVF can provide that, is rather ridiculous.
you specifically used the word "access" for raw files, which was wrong, in the context of this viewfinder discussion.
that is a useless claim, as several people have already pointed out, and it's not accurate, in part because of how the focusing screen ruins an ovf image.
Of course it is. It is a camera with an electronic viewfinder and no mirror.
Not all of them.
True fact.
Oh yes they are!
Yes, they are that, too.
No, the term "mirrorless" is really short for mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. "Mirrorless" really refers to a specific type of camera, specifically interchangeable lens cameras that have no mirrors. Otherwise, the term "mirrorless" would refer to EVERY camera that has no mirrors, which is a HUGE variety of cameras, from smartphones to P&S to advanced compacts.
Again, the term "mirrorless" is basically short for "mirrorless interchangeable lens camera" in the same way that the term "full frame" is short for "35mm full frame image sensor." So trying to make the argument that the LX100 II is a "mirrorless camera" is as wrong as trying to make the argument that the LX100 II is also a "full frame" camera.
No. It's an advanced fixed lens compact.
People erroneously refer to these fixed lens cameras as "mirrorless". If you want to apply the word "mirrorless" in the way you do, then EVERY digital camera in existence that isn't a DSLR would be a "mirrorless" camera. And therefore, it makes the term "mirrorless" useless! That being the case, then there would be no value in having the term "mirrorless" at all. It would be a practically useless term. See my point? Probably not.
That does seem to be the most commonly accepted definition.
That's ridiculous. The sensor size is not debatable, but the LX100II dos not have a mirror, and while it does not meet the accepted definition ("short for MILC"), ii is not "as wrong" as misrepresenting the sensor size.
Zeiss has introduced the ZX1 digital full frame fixed lens camera. They define it as a mirrorless camera.
"People"? How about Zeiss, at Photokina:
Like I said, some people erroneously refer to come cameras as "mirrorless". But the consensus is that "mirrorless" does, in fact, refer to interchangeable lens cameras that do not have mirrors. And to further show that this is the consensus understanding of what the term "mirrorless" means, consider the title of this thread: "DSLR vs Mirrorless technology". In other words, we are discussing the two rival forms of interchangeable lens camera technologies: DSLR vs mirrorless. Or to put it another way, the consensus understand is that "mirrorless" is a counterpart to DSLR: both are interchangeable lens camera forms, but one uses a mirror and one does not.
I think it would be rather high handed to tell Zeiss that they are defining their camera erroneously.
You are forgetting a little detail: the electronic viewfinder, rather than the mirror, and pentaprism--and through--the- (taking)-lens viewing.
Did I not modify my statement on that?
Did I not just agree that is a commonly accepted definition? And it is not the same as ""mirrorless does, in fact, refer to interchangeable lens cameras that do not have mirrors".
