I tried a mirrorless. Have you?

JeremieB wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

flektogon wrote:

KL Matt wrote:

...

Then I looked through the viewfinder. Tolerable at best. No dynamic range to the image at all. Everything looked like a cyber nightmare.

...

Matt

This is something what I do not understand. Such a modern EVF should not be inferior to any good PC monitor.

Why not? There are two main differences:

- miniaturization, we have tiny EVF screens with 3-4 million dots (in comparison, a 4K screen has about 8 millions pixels, on an incomparably larger area)

- viewing conditions, with the EVF the only light is the backlight's

and that's at the most superficial glance.

The first might very well impact DR.

Alex

Also, until recently they used OLED and HDR eventually, but still used the usual S curve of JPEGS to tone map, as I just discovered here:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2575223440/canon-eos-r3-s-ovf-simulation-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters

That seems stupid, but some really did that, put an OLED screen displaying an image developed for a low DR intent !

Then of course, HDR or not, as you said the EVF is limited by the max light intensity it can reach - the good side is you can't damage your eyes when you aim at the Sun. OVF brightness means that the view is "obscured" compared to the real scene (but remains proportional I suppose), but EVF brightness is a hard max limit.

Sorry guys (Alex, Jeremie),

I do not believe that the modern EVF are so "poor"! Actually, this part of the (mirrorless) cameras went through an immense development in the last years, especially for the only purpose, to make EVF as good/attractive as OVF! I hope I will have an opportunity to check some modern EVF sometimes .