What puzzles me about OVF versus EVF

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.



Just my perspective. EVF may do some cool things. Getting rid of a mirror box from a DSLR has some advantages. But EVF is always second best to OVF

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Just my perspective. EVF may do some cool things. Getting rid of a mirror box from a DSLR has some advantages. But EVF is always second best to OVF

Click to expand...

A pair of EVFs wouldn't be doing cool things in binoculars ..... probably the opposite !!

........ so it's a bit of a convoluted argument ........ as a pair of binoculars is a stand alone optical product that does not need the complications of electronics/ batteries etc ...... intrinsically the optics do it all ........

......... stabilized binoculars only require the electronics for the stabilization ....... and good though they may be, they don't sell in huge quantities due to their price point ...........

................ so what's to be gained by "electronic binoculars" apart from the huge cost of two EVFs and associated electronics ?

btw ....... chocolate teapots only sell well at Easter ...............

Advantages of EVF for the photographer … better visibility in low light.

Advantages of EVF for the manufacturer … lower production costs and the opportunity to introduce another range of lenses and accessories, which, at the end of the day, is where the money is! Of course, the price of the camera won't come down … it is "the latest thing", after all

The camera itself, unless being considered a piece of bling, is little more than a loss leader for the manufacturer. Kodak did it for film sales … modern interchangeable-lens cameras make their money on lenses and accessories. How else can the cost of a "dumb" battery grip, for example, be justified? A quarter of the price of a complete camera and you've still got to buy extra batteries to be able to use it!

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Just my perspective. EVF may do some cool things. Getting rid of a mirror box from a DSLR has some advantages. But EVF is always second best to OVF

Click to expand...

The focusing screen is the weak part of the OVF, and in modern (D)SLRs, it's optimized for light transmission rather than for focusing, so it no longer shows a true picture of what the final picture will look like. I've quoted someone more knowledable than myself here.

Second, EVFs don't necessarily go inhibitingly dark when you check DoF by stopping down the lens.

Third, the SLR is not the best design for AF. On-sensor AF is superior because you can computerize it for face- or eye tracking, subject recognition and other fancy stuff, and just as fast, as you now have on-sensor phase detection.

The immediacy of the OVF can't be surpassed, but the time it takes to swing the mirror out of the light path is comparable to (and probably longer than) the EVF lag in modern cameras. The fact is that with either type of VF, you need to anticipate "the decisive moment" and press the button before it happens, because your own reaction time surpasses what lag the camera mechanics and electronics might have.

So in theory, yes, an OVF is ideal, but the DSLR implementation adds complications that is overcome with modern EVFs.

I do respect that others may see it differently — I did for years — but with the right EVF implementation, I found it very easy to adapt.

As for your binocular comparison, I wonder if I should have taken you post seriously, but it's too late now

DSLR's finally will disappear, the era of EVF already started years ago. It's the same why the old double lens cameras disappeared with the introduction of the SLR cameras. New costumers do not buy old technology. Pentax DSLR's live on because the loyal but aging K mount users. Launcing a new Pentax MILC mount is no option. The only logical next step is developping a K-mount MILC serving those zillion K- lens owners out there to use their great lenses on state of the art bodies.

Abou binocullars, there are EVF's used, namely in night watchers. And digital cameras already do have sensors. Why not use them in a view finder? Binoculars do not need sensors because these still are pure analogue optics. So this comparisson is a bit odd..

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Holger Bargen said:

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Click to expand...

There is a lot that could be done to improve the quality of the back LCD - better resolution, use of brighter OLED display panel etc. to make it actually useful for situations where you need/want to have the extra information that it can provide.

The principal difference is that for binoculars, the end product is what they deliver to your eyes. For a viewfinder, the end product is a photograph. Whether one viewfinder type is prettier to look through is irrelevant to the final image.

You can not come to such a concrete conclusion in the absence of any data in the comparison of a technology used for two very different applications. I am sure it would be possible, and may even already exist for military or scientific purposes, but at prohibitive cost to get it right. Have you ever compared a pair of cheap binoculars to an excellent pair?
Our property generates a lot of wind powered energy, but nobody produces a wind powered automobile, obviously demonstrating that gasoline power is superior to wind generated power.

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

I think the issue with EVFs is that they come with complications you usually don't want in binoculars : first, a sensor, a battery, and then you probably don't want the processing pipeline required to display 90FPS or whatever in the finder of a binocular - I mean, for casual use.

But that's not because it wouldn't be useful : who wouldn't want a bright exposure in the binocular even in dim light ? Marketing wise though, most people wouldn't want to buy it when you can get "cheap" and battery-free stuff that just do the job.

In a camera, those complications are already there, so as an overall solution, if you can or want to deal with an EVF, it makes sense, and has other advantages (that are endlessly discussed here and there so no need to repeat).

But to be honest, personally I think I can't get anymore of the "which is better, OVF or EVF ?" thing. IMHO, it's different, and has different advantages and drawbacks, and the same way it would seem stupid to tell a painter that he's dumb to use a brush and a canvas when he could just use Photoshop, or to tell someone who likes rangefinders that he would get better results with something else, I wonder why people continuously argue that fellow photographers or hobbyists should use an OVF or an EVF to eventually take better photos. The best equipment for me is the one that I have and that I enjoy using, or else I would not be spending so much time taking "useless" photos, and if I thought exposure simulation or mirrorless-like AF subject detection in viewfinder were essential assets for me and my enjoyment, I would have made the switch already.

One thing is for sure, despite what some say, EVFs will NEVER be the same as OVFs, for the simple reason that they are very similar in function (VFs), but they are defined by their difference in nature. If an EVF was strictly equivalent to an OVF, then we would call it an OVF, if we think important to use a different name, it's because it is a different thing. An electronic piano is a piano but even the best ones can't match the feeling of playing on a "real" accoustic piano (and I have an electronic one, so I'm not saying they're not good enough).

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Just my perspective. EVF may do some cool things. Getting rid of a mirror box from a DSLR has some advantages. But EVF is always second best to OVF

Click to expand...

It sounds like you never seen digital night vision binoculars. Although I think they usually use one big EVF for both eyes.

Then there are also cameras like Canon powershot zoom, a camera with monocular properties. https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_powershot_zoom

GossCTP said:

[...] For a viewfinder, the end product is a photograph. Whether one viewfinder type is prettier to look through is irrelevant to the final image.

Click to expand...

Actually, while the end product of 'photography' might be a photograph, the end product of taking a picture is an image file--which may not even be natively viewable. And taking a picture is the only step where the camera's viewfinder comes into play. Producing something viewable or printable is a secondary step, and might be done either in the camera (to show in the EVF, or record as a jpg or equivalent), or in separate PP software.

The wildly inaccurate 'wysiwyg' claim of MILC ads completely elides the second, post-processing step, and also the fact that a picture may not have any single definitive 'wyg' form, but be subject to multiple treatments for different uses.

Unless we discount post-processing entirely, how can a photographer possibly figure out how to produce the best, most flexible image file if he/she is not even looking at the scene to start with, but rather at an already-manipulated image, limited by both what the sensor can record, and whatever the camera's on-board image transformation software decides or is set to do?

Holger Bargen said:

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know when was the last time you looked through an EVF designed and made within the last three years, and which EVF it was?

You might get an idea of why there are people in the world who have changed their mind regarding the use of an EVF.

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because of "progress", which is not always for our benefit ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Why does the EVF "wins"? Because the companies gain more by it. The EVF itself is not important; but a mirrorless can be made cheaper and with better specs than a camera sporting a quick return mirror system. And people would be more tempted to upgrade because it's something-new and not same-old (then they'd find out they have to replace lenses).

The image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all. Except, for some people it does...

John_A_G said:

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

Click to expand...

There's a place for both EVFs and OVFs, and we should stop thinking "there can be only one".

I am, however, slightly concerned that this bit of diversity is only up to Pentax, and Pentax has to both close the gap and advance the DSLRs in order to stay competitive. And they don't get much support.

Alex

Alex Sarbu said:

John_A_G said:

OpticsEngineer said:

If EVF is so great it seems like someone would sell binoculars showing each eye an EVF image. But no one does. You know why? Because it would be second best to what you can get from pure optics.

Click to expand...

If an OVF CAMERA were better than EVF then all the manufacturers would be abandoning mirrorless in favor of DSLR but most are doing the opposite. Why do you think that is?

Click to expand...

Because of "progress", which is not always for our benefit ;-)

Just kidding, sort of. I see you're falling into the incorrect assumption that it's either this or that, a "winning" technology and an "abandoned" one; however, both types of viewfinders have their own strengths and weaknesses, so we should not say one could fully replace the other.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" defined the word paradigm. He was also clear that a new paradigm does not replace an old paradigm. It simply allows new things to be done, often at a loss of other things.

Both OVFs and EVFs have their merits. Which is "better" depends on what better means for you.

Doug

Alex Sarbu said:

Why does the EVF "wins"? Because the companies gain more by it. The EVF itself is not important; but a mirrorless can be made cheaper and with better specs than a camera sporting a quick return mirror system. And people would be more tempted to upgrade because it's something-new and not same-old (then they'd find out they have to replace lenses).

The image in the viewfinder doesn't matter at all. Except, for some people it does...

Alex Sarbu said:

The EVF is the necessary evil to make a better overall solution. Which is why we see continuous improvement in that area. I suspect the majority of people going mirrorless who have used a quality OVF would agree EVF is still a weak link but I'm seeing more and more that people are finding the overall solution better.

Click to expand...

There's a place for both EVFs and OVFs, and we should stop thinking "there can be only one".

I am, however, slightly concerned that this bit of diversity is only up to Pentax, and Pentax has to both close the gap and advance the DSLRs in order to stay competitive. And they don't get much support.

Alex

Click to expand...

[No message]

Klaus dk said:

Holger Bargen said:

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know when was the last time you looked through an EVF designed and made within the last three years, and which EVF it was?

You might get an idea of why there are people in the world who have changed their mind regarding the use of an EVF.

Click to expand...

Or not. I kept hearing, "but you haven't seen this brand new EVF". Well, in many of those cases I actually had seen the "brand new EVF", or I would see it latter. Sometimes there was an improvement - but it made no difference.

Alex

JeremieB said:

...The best equipment for me is the one that I have and that I enjoy using, or else I would not be spending so much time taking "useless" photos, and if I thought exposure simulation or mirrorless-like AF subject detection in viewfinder were essential assets for me and my enjoyment, I would have made the switch already.

Click to expand...

That certainly rings true for me, and also for what I see from friends who are into photography. The few I know who still shoot for a living use whatever tool works best most of the time for them given what they need to produce. The rest of us can use what we like.

The EVF vs. OVF discussions reminds me of a quote by Elliott Erwitt (used as a tag line by somebody on this forum I think..) which I believe has quite a bit of truth to it.

"It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby."

Alex Sarbu said:

Klaus dk said:

Holger Bargen said:

One question:

When did you have a look through a Pentax OVF designed in the last few years - let's say K1 or K3iii?

You may get an idea why there are people in the world who would never give up the pleasure of having that view for a view through an electronic monitor.

It's a little bit like being part of a live concert instead of watching it on TV ...

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know when was the last time you looked through an EVF designed and made within the last three years, and which EVF it was?

You might get an idea of why there are people in the world who have changed their mind regarding the use of an EVF.

Click to expand...

Or not. I kept hearing, "but you haven't seen this brand new EVF". Well, in many of those cases I actually had seen the "brand new EVF", or I would see it latter. Sometimes there was an improvement - but it made no difference.

Alex

Click to expand...

Fine by me, I didn't answer Holger's question for the same reason. Hope you'll be happy with your choice.