Is entry-level pentamirror viewfinder officially dead?

voronspb · Apr 11, 2019

I remember 2005, when the OVF in EOS 300D looked like a miracle in entry-level digital cameras, offering great quality, lightning-fast AF and convenient display in the bottom.

Even not so long ago, ca. 2013, the OVF offered obvious advantages over Live View:

'2013 DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(+) Super-fast AF
(+) AF tracking
(+) Great battery life

'2013 Live view (CDAF):

(-) Very slow AF
(-) No tracking
(-) Poor battery life

There was no excuse to use the Live View.

But! By 2019 the situation has turned upside down, especially in entry-level cameras, and we clearly see it in EOS Rebel SL3.

'2019 Entry-level DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(-) Too few AF points (9), poor spread
(-) Cannot detect faces and eyes
(-) Focus accuracy not guaranteed
(-) Using fast lenses is tricky due to lack of AFMA
(-) So-so tracking
(-) Off-center AF points are unreliable
(+) Great battery life

'2019 Live view (OSPDAF / hybrid AF):

(+) Many AF points (several hundreds) covering entire frame
(+) Prioritizes eyes and faces
(+) Great accuracy
(+) No AFMA required anymore
(+) AF tracking is as reliable as one-shot AF
(+) All AF points are equally good
(-) Poor battery life

So, it took only a few years to render the entry-level pentamirror OVF obsolete. Now its "specificities" have turned into solid disadvantages in comparison to OSPDAF. Anecdotally on '2019 entry level DSLR you'll be using the Live View if you need the best AF performance, and the OVF is good only for battery conservation and under bright sun.

Then why do we need the OVF at all? After the release of SL3 it's clearly seen that entry-level DSLRs are doomed, and their end of era is obvious.

Even the low price may not save them, as you can make such a camera even cheaper by just throwing away the mirror and viewfinder (keeping the EF-S mount), without much loss in performance.

Gerry Winterbourne · Apr 11, 2019

voronspb said:
I remember 2005, when the OVF in EOS 300D looked like a miracle in entry-level digital cameras, offering great quality, lightning-fast AF and convenient display in the bottom.

Even not so long ago, ca. 2013, the OVF offered obvious advantages over Live View:

'2013 DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(+) Super-fast AF

(+) AF tracking

(+) Great battery life

'2013 Live view (CDAF):

(-) Very slow AF

(-) No tracking

(-) Poor battery life

There was no excuse to use the Live View.

But! By 2019 the situation has turned upside down, especially in entry-level cameras, and we clearly see it in EOS Rebel SL3.

'2019 Entry-level DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(-) Too few AF points (9), poor spread

(-) Cannot detect faces and eyes

(-) Focus accuracy not guaranteed

(-) Using fast lenses is tricky due to lack of AFMA

(-) So-so tracking

(-) Off-center AF points are unreliable

(+) Great battery life

'2019 Live view (OSPDAF / hybrid AF):

(+) Many AF points (several hundreds) covering entire frame

(+) Prioritizes eyes and faces

(+) Great accuracy

(+) No AFMA required anymore

(+) AF tracking is as reliable as one-shot AF

(+) All AF points are equally good

(-) Poor battery life

So, it took only a few years to render the entry-level pentamirror OVF obsolete. Now its "specificities" have turned into solid disadvantages in comparison to OSPDAF. Anecdotally on '2019 entry level DSLR you'll be using the Live View if you need the best AF performance, and the OVF is good only for battery conservation and under bright sun.

Pentamirror OVFs have always been inferior to pentaprisms but they are cheaper so it's easier to create a camera that millions of people are prepared to pay for. That's not changed just because a new style of camera has come along.

The Pentamirror will only be dead when those economics reverse. The buyers of most cheap DSLRs really don't care about all the things you've listed so they'll carry on buying on price.

voronspb said:
Then why do we need the OVF at all?

Among other reasons:

The viewfinder is emphatically the biggest factor. Through an OVF I can see the colours and dynamic range of the scene the same way my eye sees them. If it is very high contrast I can see into the shadows (insofar as my vision can do so) and also the highlights.

With an OVF I see what the camera's JPG does to the scene - with its own interpretation of white balance and colours and restricted dynamic range. Now, I could of course adjust WB in the EVF - but that takes time, so that's one of the cases where the "solution" of seeing what the camera will deliver is to me a problem.

There's obviously a degree of familiarity here - I have 60 years' worth of experience of looking at a scene with my eyes and working out how the photos will turn out. Obviously newcomers don't have that - but I think it is a valuable ability and relying on the camera from the start can delay (or even prevent) learning it. It is often said that mirrorless cameras help teaching/learning photography. I think they swap learning photography for learning to follow a camera.

Note that the short comings of the EVF apply also to live view on my DSLRs. The difference is that on the occasions where the camera's view of things is of benefit I get the choice on DSLR.

The implementation of highlight warning (on all the models I've tried or read about) on mirrorless cameras is unusable for me. I mean the "zebras" - these are fixed on the screen but as the camera moves they appear to move across the image (it's really the other way round, of course) so the ends of the zebra stripes flicker. That immediately gives me a headache because of the strobe-like effect (which I don't suffer so much in strobe lighting, oddly enough). So I can't use that "solution" in the EVF. In live view my DSLRs use solid red, which causes no problems. As I say, this is a matter of implementation - both types could be given an option for either way; but until solid colours are available on mirrorless cameras I won't buy one.

voronspb said:
After the release of SL3 it's clearly seen that entry-level DSLRs are doomed, and their end of era is obvious.

Even the low price may not save them, as you can make such a camera even cheaper by just throwing away the mirror and viewfinder (keeping the EF-S mount), without much loss in performance.

"Can" perhaps, but so far no one has. when or if they do things might change; until then not.

sportyaccordy · Apr 11, 2019

voronspb said:
Then why do we need the OVF at all? After the release of SL3 it's clearly seen that entry-level DSLRs are doomed, and their end of era is obvious.

Even the low price may not save them, as you can make such a camera even cheaper by just throwing away the mirror and viewfinder (keeping the EF-S mount), without much loss in performance.

The way I see it, something like an SL3 is an MILC with an OVF attached. The MILCs competing in its price range generally don't have any viewfinder, so there's that.

But the entry level ILC in general is on death's door; mirrored or not.

Lee Jay · Apr 11, 2019

voronspb said:
'2019 Entry-level DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(-) Too few AF points (9), poor spread

(-) Cannot detect faces and eyes

(-) Focus accuracy not guaranteed

(-) Using fast lenses is tricky due to lack of AFMA

(-) So-so tracking

(-) Off-center AF points are unreliable

(+) Great battery life

I shot for 10 years with 9 AF points, and never found it remotely limiting. I have 60-something now and 99% of the time I use only 5 of them (center plug four around it).

The tracking AF on this AF system is so good that it can track objects that move through the entire depth of field in 1/20th of a second. I know since I shot with it for 10 years on very, very difficult subjects. None of those cameras had AFMA and I did use f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses without difficulty, and most of those were on faces at events. I routinely managed 99%+ in-focus shots doing that.

So quit making up stuff.

sportyaccordy · Apr 11, 2019

Lee Jay said:
voronspb said:

'2019 Entry-level DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(-) Too few AF points (9), poor spread

(-) Cannot detect faces and eyes

(-) Focus accuracy not guaranteed

(-) Using fast lenses is tricky due to lack of AFMA

(-) So-so tracking

(-) Off-center AF points are unreliable

(+) Great battery life

Click to expand...

I shot for 10 years with 9 AF points, and never found it remotely limiting. I have 60-something now and 99% of the time I use only 5 of them (center plug four around it).

The tracking AF on this AF system is so good that it can track objects that move through the entire depth of field in 1/20th of a second. I know since I shot with it for 10 years on very, very difficult subjects. None of those cameras had AFMA and I did use f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses without difficulty, and most of those were on faces at events. I routinely managed 99%+ in-focus shots doing that.

So quit making up stuff.

Why are you stating the performance of your new AF system? If the old one was so great I doubt you would have upgraded.

Lee Jay · Apr 11, 2019

sportyaccordy said:
Lee Jay said:

voronspb said:

'2019 Entry-level DSLR viewfinder (PDAF):

(-) Too few AF points (9), poor spread

(-) Cannot detect faces and eyes

(-) Focus accuracy not guaranteed

(-) Using fast lenses is tricky due to lack of AFMA

(-) So-so tracking

(-) Off-center AF points are unreliable

(+) Great battery life

Click to expand...

I shot for 10 years with 9 AF points, and never found it remotely limiting. I have 60-something now and 99% of the time I use only 5 of them (center plug four around it).

The tracking AF on this AF system is so good that it can track objects that move through the entire depth of field in 1/20th of a second. I know since I shot with it for 10 years on very, very difficult subjects. None of those cameras had AFMA and I did use f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses without difficulty, and most of those were on faces at events. I routinely managed 99%+ in-focus shots doing that.

So quit making up stuff.

Click to expand...

Why are you stating the performance of your new AF system?

I'm not - that was about the 2005 Canon 9 point AF system.

sportyaccordy said:
If the old one was so great I doubt you would have upgraded.

I upgraded for 8MP to 20MP and 5fps to 10FPS, plus a 2 stop improvement in high ISO performance. AF performance has nothing to do with it.

--
Lee Jay

voronspb · Apr 11, 2019

Lee Jay said:
I shot for 10 years with 9 AF points, and never found it remotely limiting. I have 60-something now and 99% of the time I use only 5 of them (center plug four around it).

I always try taking advantage of my camera to ensure the best possible yield of sharp photos. Thus all 400 focus points are actively used while tracking the faces and eyes.

Lee Jay said:
None of those cameras had AFMA and I did use f/2.8, f/2, f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses without difficulty, and most of those were on faces at events. I routinely managed 99%+ in-focus shots doing that.

You're a lucky one. I've had many photos from a certain shooting session thrashed just because I put on untested lens, which was back-focusing. Before/after fixing it:

282545fe8965431c88858cf90db62a63.jpg.png

Also in EOS 300D era it took about 5 copies and a trip to another city to find an F2.8 lens which was focusing well on my camera. A few years later, when I was selling the Sigma 30/1.4 DC lens, the buyer told me that he has tested half-dozen of lenses (both new and used), and mine was the first one which focused properly.

So this problem is far from imaginary. Only users of slow glass are free from it.

--
Vladimir Gorbunov

Lee Jay · Apr 11, 2019

Didn't seem too hard to me.

--
Lee Jay

voronspb · Apr 12, 2019

Very nice photos, thank you. But obviously they're way more difficult to get and require a lot more practice than simple depressing two buttons at once and getting the focus nailed on eye in every frame in series.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4308245

You simply don't care about focusing on right feature anymore, like you don't care about advancing the film after each shot, or about the buffer depth.

Obviously this tech will be developed further in MILC and LV-equipped DSLR, but the OVF will remain just where it was 10 years ago... That's my point.

Gerry Winterbourne · Apr 12, 2019

voronspb said:
Very nice photos, thank you. But obviously they're way more difficult to get and require a lot more practice than simple depressing two buttons at once and getting the focus nailed on eye in every frame in series.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4308245

You simply don't care about focusing on right feature anymore, like you don't care about advancing the film after each shot, or about the buffer depth.

Obviously this tech will be developed further in MILC and LV-equipped DSLR, but the OVF will remain just where it was 10 years ago... That's my point.

You are mixing two different things here. The OVF as a viewfinder is pretty well what it always has been for over 50 years, not just 10 years.

But the things you are talking about - focus speed and accuracy - depend on the camera, not its viewfinder.

voronspb · Apr 12, 2019

Gerry Winterbourne said:
You are mixing two different things here. The OVF as a viewfinder is pretty well what it always has been for over 50 years, not just 10 years.

But the things you are talking about - focus speed and accuracy - depend on the camera, not its viewfinder.

You cannot detach the aiming style from AF technology. In entry-level cameras the OVF means dated 9-point PDAF, and LiveView means modern DPAF with lots of features. I deliberately wanted to make things shorter. In full length it would be something like this:

Gerry Winterbourne said:
Is the OVF in entry-level DSLRs obsolete because the entry level PDAF tech has not evolved much since 2005, and now it's overrun with OSPDAF tech (like DPAF), which is crawling down to 500$ price range, and now the LV is clearly winning in terms of AF performance?

Obviously there're economical reasons to reserve good PDAF tech and large bright pentaprism OVF for top-tier DSLRs, but in entry level it basically means that the Live View is simply better than OVF, and there's not much reason left to peek into this tiny dark tunnel... Unless you're running short of battery, or under bright sun, of course.

sportyaccordy · Apr 12, 2019

Well it depends on how you define "better". I'd rather have 1 fast central OVF AF point than slow CDAF across the frame in live view... and that's the reality of most entry level DSLRs. Even Canon's DPAF is pretty lackluster, and I'm citing my experience with it on a 5D4... I imagine it's way worse with a Rebel.

But for me, being tethered to the VF for shooting is a non-starter, and thankfully MILCs for whatever reason have much more usable LV AF. I'm still hoping for a D760 with the Z6's sensor, IBIS and LV performance but until something like that comes around I'm OK with MILCs.

voronspb · Apr 12, 2019

sportyaccordy said:
Well it depends on how you define "better". I'd rather have 1 fast central OVF AF point than slow CDAF across the frame in live view... and that's the reality of most entry level DSLRs.

Until now, I suppose. No, of course I'm talking about OSPDAF, which is available in in entry-level Rebel SL2 and SL3.

It may be not as great as OSPDAF on Sony A7III, but nevertheless this tech is in constant development (which we see in A6400). Unlike the PDAF in entry-level DSLRs.

--
Vladimir Gorbunov

Lee Jay · Apr 12, 2019

voronspb said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:

You are mixing two different things here. The OVF as a viewfinder is pretty well what it always has been for over 50 years, not just 10 years.

But the things you are talking about - focus speed and accuracy - depend on the camera, not its viewfinder.

Click to expand...

You cannot detach the aiming style from AF technology. In entry-level cameras the OVF means dated 9-point PDAF, and LiveView means modern DPAF with lots of features. I deliberately wanted to make things shorter. In full length it would be something like this:

voronspb said:

Is the OVF in entry-level DSLRs obsolete because the entry level PDAF tech has not evolved much since 2005, and now it's overrun with OSPDAF tech (like DPAF), which is crawling down to 500$ price range, and now the LV is clearly winning in terms of AF performance?

Click to expand...

Obviously there're economical reasons to reserve good PDAF tech and large bright pentaprism OVF for top-tier DSLRs, but in entry level it basically means that the Live View is simply better than OVF, and there's not much reason left to peek into this tiny dark tunnel... Unless you're running short of battery, or under bright sun, of course.

Gerry Winterbourne · Apr 12, 2019

voronspb said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:

You are mixing two different things here. The OVF as a viewfinder is pretty well what it always has been for over 50 years, not just 10 years.

But the things you are talking about - focus speed and accuracy - depend on the camera, not its viewfinder.

Click to expand...

You cannot detach the aiming style from AF technology. In entry-level cameras the OVF means dated 9-point PDAF,

Wake up. An entry level camera uses a cheap viewfinder to keep the price down; it uses few AF points to keep price down

Canon could, if it wanted, put a more expensive VF in with the same number of AF points; it could use the same VF but add more AF points. Neither VF nor number of AF points causes the other. That particular OVF does not mean 9-point PDAF.

voronspb said:
and LiveView means modern DPAF with lots of features. I deliberately wanted to make things shorter. In full length it would be something like this:

It doesn't matter how long or short you make it; what you say is still wrong.

voronspb · Apr 12, 2019

Lee Jay said:
I'd take an entry level crop pentamirror viewfinder over the best EVF I've seen every time.

I don't think so. Both my cameras have mid-level EVFs (not enough resolution), but they are a lot better than OVF on Rebels (too small and dark) and more or less equal to OVF on EOS 6D. I have myopia, and I don't see too much detail in OVF either. On the other hand, the EVF allows zooming the picture for precise manual focusing, which is impossible with contemporary OVF without special MF-related focusing screen.

Also the WYSIWYG workflow with EVF is a deal breaker. You don't need guessing whether your image will be under- or overexposured, or highlights will be blown, as you see everything before pressing the button. Since selling my DSRLs, I've never had any hint of regret for OVF.

Lee Jay said:
And I still think that dated 9 point AF system will wipe the floor with the AF on these mirrorless cameras on difficult fast moving subjects.

It was correct about 3 years ago. But modern OSPDAF is absolutely competitive in comparison to pro-level DSLRs, plus a lot broader AF point coverage across the frame, plus Face/Eye tracking, plus object tracking. Consider the review of A7III at DPR.

Gerry Winterbourne · Apr 12, 2019

voronspb said:
Lee Jay said:

I'd take an entry level crop pentamirror viewfinder over the best EVF I've seen every time.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Both my cameras have mid-level EVFs (not enough resolution), but they are a lot better than OVF on Rebels (too small and dark) and more or less equal to OVF on EOS 6D. I have myopia, and I don't see too much detail in OVF either. On the other hand, the EVF allows zooming the picture for precise manual focusing, which is impossible with contemporary OVF without special MF-related focusing screen.

Also the WYSIWYG workflow with EVF is a deal breaker. You don't need guessing whether your image will be under- or overexposured,

If you shoot raw it doesn't give you accurate results so there's just as much guesswork. If you are a JPG shooter what you say may be true - but don't project your experience on everyone else.

voronspb said:
or highlights will be blown, as you see everything before pressing the button. Since selling my DSRLs, I've never had any hint of regret for OVF.

voronspb said:

And I still think that dated 9 point AF system will wipe the floor with the AF on these mirrorless cameras on difficult fast moving subjects.

Click to expand...

It was correct about 3 years ago. But modern OSPDAF is absolutely competitive in comparison to pro-level DSLRs, plus a lot broader AF point coverage across the frame, plus Face/Eye tracking, plus object tracking. Consider the review of A7III at DPR.

Lee Jay · Apr 12, 2019

voronspb said:
Lee Jay said:

I'd take an entry level crop pentamirror viewfinder over the best EVF I've seen every time.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Both my cameras have mid-level EVFs (not enough resolution), but they are a lot better than OVF on Rebels (too small and dark) and more or less equal to OVF on EOS 6D.

I compared top-tier to 7D Mark II and D750 and it's really no contest - the OVFs are MASSIVELY better.

voronspb said:
I have myopia,

So do I.

voronspb said:
and I don't see too much detail in OVF either.

I wear my glasses.

voronspb said:
On the other hand, the EVF allows zooming the picture for precise manual focusing, which is impossible with contemporary OVF without special MF-related focusing screen.

That's the one and only advantage of EVFs over OVFs. Fortunately, all my lenses are autofocus.

voronspb said:
Also the WYSIWYG workflow with EVF is a deal breaker.

Exactly - EVFs are horrible in that regard. They give you want the camera wants the scene to look like instead of what the scene actually looks like.

voronspb said:
You don't need guessing whether your image will be under- or overexposured, or highlights will be blown, as you see everything before pressing the button.

voronspb said:
Since selling my DSRLs, I've never had any hint of regret for OVF.

voronspb said:

And I still think that dated 9 point AF system will wipe the floor with the AF on these mirrorless cameras on difficult fast moving subjects.

Click to expand...

It was correct about 3 years ago. But modern OSPDAF is absolutely competitive in comparison to pro-level DSLRs, plus a lot broader AF point coverage across the frame, plus Face/Eye tracking, plus object tracking. Consider the review of A7III at DPR.

Every time I see someone say this, I ask for a sample of an object moving through the DOF 20 times a second, and I usually get birds moving parallel with the frame.

--
Lee Jay

Lee Jay · Apr 12, 2019

Gerry Winterbourne said:
voronspb said:

Lee Jay said:

I'd take an entry level crop pentamirror viewfinder over the best EVF I've seen every time.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. Both my cameras have mid-level EVFs (not enough resolution), but they are a lot better than OVF on Rebels (too small and dark) and more or less equal to OVF on EOS 6D. I have myopia, and I don't see too much detail in OVF either. On the other hand, the EVF allows zooming the picture for precise manual focusing, which is impossible with contemporary OVF without special MF-related focusing screen.

Also the WYSIWYG workflow with EVF is a deal breaker. You don't need guessing whether your image will be under- or overexposured,

Click to expand...

If you shoot raw it doesn't give you accurate results so there's just as much guesswork. If you are a JPG shooter what you say may be true - but don't project your experience on everyone else.

It's not true with JPEGs either, if you post-process.

I post-process every shot I use.

riveredger · Apr 12, 2019

Lee Jay said:
voronspb said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

You are mixing two different things here. The OVF as a viewfinder is pretty well what it always has been for over 50 years, not just 10 years.

But the things you are talking about - focus speed and accuracy - depend on the camera, not its viewfinder.

Click to expand...

You cannot detach the aiming style from AF technology. In entry-level cameras the OVF means dated 9-point PDAF, and LiveView means modern DPAF with lots of features. I deliberately wanted to make things shorter. In full length it would be something like this:

Lee Jay said:

Is the OVF in entry-level DSLRs obsolete because the entry level PDAF tech has not evolved much since 2005, and now it's overrun with OSPDAF tech (like DPAF), which is crawling down to 500$ price range, and now the LV is clearly winning in terms of AF performance?

Click to expand...

Obviously there're economical reasons to reserve good PDAF tech and large bright pentaprism OVF for top-tier DSLRs, but in entry level it basically means that the Live View is simply better than OVF, and there's not much reason left to peek into this tiny dark tunnel... Unless you're running short of battery, or under bright sun, of course.

Click to expand...

I just went and tested some top tier EVFs and they still aren't very good as viewfinders. They're blurry when panning or on moving subjects, they still crush blacks and blow highlights making it difficult to see the subjects in tough conditions, their resolution is still poor and they still don't represent the scene brightness properly (too bright in the dark, too dim in bright conditions).

I'd take an entry level crop pentamirror viewfinder over the best EVF I've seen every time. And I still think that dated 9 point AF system will wipe the floor with the AF on these mirrorless cameras on difficult fast moving subjects.

--
Lee Jay

I call BS. Which cameras did you test and where did you test them?

Is entry-level pentamirror viewfinder officially dead?

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts