EVF will do to OVF what digital did to film

[Antonio_2]

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes, unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF. Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

With OVF it's most likely you will discover the pic is not what you wanted at home when watching the pic with the computer (btw the monitor works just like the evf, again WYSWG). Lcd on the back of OVF cameras is useless because low res and not light shielded, plus you have to move the eye from viewfinder and change the your eye-focus to a very near object (the lcd). Too slow, too distracting, not as immediate as with the EVF. With a DSLR I usually just check for the histogram on the field and discover the rest at home.

MF is impossible on current DSLR OVF, better an enlarged portion assist on EVF.

EVF offer better fov to eyeglasses wearer. Affordable DSLR OVF are small and dark and are often a mess to adjust when wearing/not wearing glasses. I had much easier experience with EVF where I could see large, bright picture and infocus with or without glasses with little or no diopter adjustement. EVF can be easily angled like on the minolta Ax series, additionally the live lcd preview can be angled too offering possibilities for angle photography impossible with OVF.

Polarizers preview works better on OVF but I guess they could work fine if there was a button to temporarely lock EVF exposure preview. It should be easy to implement.

EVF live delay is an issue that can be fixed, I used 2 cameras with EVF and one had really no delay, meaning that prefocused captured really what was showing the EVF when pressing the shutter, just as a DSLR does. AF speed can be improved with the addition of dedicated electronics component, current cheap p&s are slow because there is just one CPU&CCD doing all the tasks and lenses have also slow motor (consider the price of p&s cam+lens

So I think it's just a matter of time and we will have an hiquality changeable lenses camera with hiquality lenses (probably better than current DSLR because of removed mirror space), silent, smaller, lighter with no flash sync limit and with such a smart viewfinder that it will be better than having a thethered laptop on the field! I am currently shooting with a DSLR because today they offer best lenses and sensor, but I hope in future to shoot with a camera like that.

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR. If they are so good to make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film debate of some years ago.
--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2

 

[Leon Wittwer]

--
Leon
http://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm

 

[Antonio_2]

--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2

 

[echelon2004]

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes,
unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF
what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF.
Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

I get what I see, dunno how you're doing it...

Yes you can get more info on an evf, on one of my cams I can get a useless live histogram with little squares telling me that if I expose the main subject right, some other things might get over or under exposed=) Very neat, almost as handy as a help function for the menus for those who won't bother reading the manual

With OVF it's most likely you will discover the pic is not what you
wanted at home when watching the pic with the computer (btw the
monitor works just like the evf, again WYSWG). Lcd on the back of
OVF cameras is useless because low res and not light shielded, plus
you have to move the eye from viewfinder and change the your
eye-focus to a very near object (the lcd). Too slow, too
distracting, not as immediate as with the EVF. With a DSLR I
usually just check for the histogram on the field and discover the
rest at home.

My pics look exactly what I anticipated before shooting except for those not sharp enough due to my inability to predict where my object is going to do next.

MF is impossible on current DSLR OVF, better an enlarged portion
assist on EVF.

No, enlarging a EVF, such as my c8080, is much harder to use then MF on the DSLRs I've used.

EVF offer better fov to eyeglasses wearer. Affordable DSLR OVF are
small and dark and are often a mess to adjust when wearing/not
wearing glasses. I had much easier experience with EVF where I
could see large, bright picture and infocus with or without glasses
with little or no diopter adjustement. EVF can be easily angled
like on the minolta Ax series, additionally the live lcd preview
can be angled too offering possibilities for angle photography
impossible with OVF.

Don't wear glasses so can't comment on that.

Polarizers preview works better on OVF but I guess they could work
fine if there was a button to temporarely lock EVF exposure
preview. It should be easy to implement.

Agreed

EVF live delay is an issue that can be fixed, I used 2 cameras with
EVF and one had really no delay, meaning that prefocused captured
really what was showing the EVF when pressing the shutter, just as
a DSLR does. AF speed can be improved with the addition of
dedicated electronics component, current cheap p&s are slow because
there is just one CPU&CCD doing all the tasks and lenses have also
slow motor (consider the price of p&s cam+lens
On a changeable lens evf camera with good dedicated lenses I expect
AF would be as fast as with DSLR.

Unless we stick to one ccd I guess we need some way to rediredt the light between sensors...like some sort of mirror system

So I think it's just a matter of time and we will have an hiquality
changeable lenses camera with hiquality lenses (probably better
than current DSLR because of removed mirror space), silent,
smaller, lighter with no flash sync limit and with such a smart
viewfinder that it will be better than having a thethered laptop on
the field! I am currently shooting with a DSLR because today they
offer best lenses and sensor, but I hope in future to shoot with a
camera like that.

I think they will come too, but I can't see any advantages.

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need
all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer
must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the
shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR.

What a silly comment.

Digital is a way to improve or just change the work flow, not to compensate for lacking skill.

If they are so good to
make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital
at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all
this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film
debate of some years ago.

The same debate exists today, and in some respects the debate's still valid.
Might not be for you, but for others it is.

Cheers

--
Anders

http://www.teamexcalibur.se
http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4.html
http://www.teamexcalibur.se/excalibursida4a.html

event photography and photo journalism

 

[marf]

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes,
unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF
what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF.
Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

With OVF it's most likely you will discover the pic is not what you
wanted at home when watching the pic with the computer (btw the
monitor works just like the evf, again WYSWG). Lcd on the back of
OVF cameras is useless because low res and not light shielded, plus
you have to move the eye from viewfinder and change the your
eye-focus to a very near object (the lcd). Too slow, too
distracting, not as immediate as with the EVF. With a DSLR I
usually just check for the histogram on the field and discover the
rest at home.

MF is impossible on current DSLR OVF, better an enlarged portion
assist on EVF.

EVF offer better fov to eyeglasses wearer. Affordable DSLR OVF are
small and dark and are often a mess to adjust when wearing/not
wearing glasses. I had much easier experience with EVF where I
could see large, bright picture and infocus with or without glasses
with little or no diopter adjustement. EVF can be easily angled
like on the minolta Ax series, additionally the live lcd preview
can be angled too offering possibilities for angle photography
impossible with OVF.

Polarizers preview works better on OVF but I guess they could work
fine if there was a button to temporarely lock EVF exposure
preview. It should be easy to implement.

EVF live delay is an issue that can be fixed, I used 2 cameras with
EVF and one had really no delay, meaning that prefocused captured
really what was showing the EVF when pressing the shutter, just as
a DSLR does. AF speed can be improved with the addition of
dedicated electronics component, current cheap p&s are slow because
there is just one CPU&CCD doing all the tasks and lenses have also
slow motor (consider the price of p&s cam+lens
On a changeable lens evf camera with good dedicated lenses I expect
AF would be as fast as with DSLR.

So I think it's just a matter of time and we will have an hiquality
changeable lenses camera with hiquality lenses (probably better
than current DSLR because of removed mirror space), silent,
smaller, lighter with no flash sync limit and with such a smart
viewfinder that it will be better than having a thethered laptop on
the field! I am currently shooting with a DSLR because today they
offer best lenses and sensor, but I hope in future to shoot with a
camera like that.

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need
all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer
must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the
shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR. If they are so good to
make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital
at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all
this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film
debate of some years ago.
--

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

Antonio

from what you write one can easily see you dont know what you are talking about.

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes,
unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF
what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF.
Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

EVF's will not be able to show you what you will get. It is very simple. The EVF has to refresh quite often therfor for anyone who would actually put some thought into it it would be clear that it can not give you the same result as it can not duplicate the same exposure parameters

With OVF it's most likely you will discover the pic is not what you
wanted at home when watching the pic with the computer (btw the

Actually that is the problem with EVF's. EVF's are still way to slow to be useful in photography. There are some horrible expensive ones for pro video cameras but even those are IMO still not quite there for photography.

eye-focus to a very near object (the lcd). Too slow, too
distracting, not as immediate as with the EVF. With a DSLR I

The EVF and the rear LCD are both just as slow.

MF is impossible on current DSLR OVF, better an enlarged portion
assist on EVF.

MF is so much better on a DSLR then on an EVF with the exception of a DSLR such as the rebel as they dont have a prism but then again if you want to do a lot of MF work you shouldnt by a rebel anyway.

EVF offer better fov to eyeglasses wearer. Affordable DSLR OVF are

Right ... can you say EVF tunnel ...

can be angled too offering possibilities for angle photography
impossible with OVF.

OVF's have several accessories including angled viewfinders as well as even an accessory EVF if you wanted but most people would never want that anyway .

Polarizers preview works better on OVF but I guess they could work
fine if there was a button to temporarely lock EVF exposure
preview. It should be easy to implement.

Anything preview will work better. EVF's just simply are not there yet

EVF live delay is an issue that can be fixed, I used 2 cameras with
EVF and one had really no delay, meaning that prefocused captured
really what was showing the EVF when pressing the shutter, just as

See thats the problem. Which camera has no delay. Please let us know. Currently there is no EVF digicam that has acceptable delay

a DSLR does. AF speed can be improved with the addition of
dedicated electronics component, current cheap p&s are slow because
there is just one CPU&CCD doing all the tasks and lenses have also
slow motor (consider the price of p&s cam+lens
On a changeable lens evf camera with good dedicated lenses I expect
AF would be as fast as with DSLR.

Not really. you still have to clear the sensor as it is always active before you can even start the cycle of the exposure

So I think it's just a matter of time and we will have an hiquality
changeable lenses camera with hiquality lenses (probably better

Well i would say it is a matter of time before we have an EVF in a camera such as the rebel line which is the right target group. It will still be lagging behind OVF's but it will be a first step into it.

Later down the line there will be good enough EVF's to replace OVF's in better DSLR's but not in the next 5 years probably not even in the next 10 years.

than current DSLR because of removed mirror space)

so you are also going to throw away all lenses ? How do you intend to AF and meter. Off the main sensor like digicams with contrast AF. I dont think so.

smaller, lighter with no flash sync limit and with such a smart

flash sync limit depends on the sensor technology not on other things. My 1D for example happily syncs at 1/1000. All CMOS sensors sadly currently do not support this as they require a physical shutter.

viewfinder that it will be better than having a thethered laptop on
the field! I am currently shooting with a DSLR because today they
offer best lenses and sensor, but I hope in future to shoot with a
camera like that.

IMO the crowded EVF's of some of these cams are ridicolous. Stuffed with all kinds of useless information cant even see the real important stuff anymore.

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need
all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer
must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the
shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR. If they are so good to

I suggest to you to get a camera phone. That way all you have to know is how to push a button and you get a large EVF that doubles as all kinds of other stuff. That should be easy enough.

make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital
at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all
this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film
debate of some years ago.

Well actually 10 years ago the film / digital debate made sense because digital wasnt there yet for serious photography just like EVF's just arent there yet. Some people know when it is the right time to embrace technology. Now for snapping zoo shots or pics of your house cat an EVF will do just fine. Even for other things such as landscape photography it will do ok too but for action photography and even portraits and such they are just not even close yet.

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[Robert Hoffman]

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes,
unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF
what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF.
Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

And when the manufacturers are able to put 50 MP on a sensor the
size of a pin-head, you'll probably want one of those, too - right?

Robert
--
'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'

 

[Jim Parsons]

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need
all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer
must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the
shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR. If they are so good to
make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital
at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all
this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film
debate of some years ago.
--

Well, why can't the 2 co-exist? Why do all of you who think you need to have every bit of info possible displayed in the viewfinder think it's the only way? I like my uncluttered viewfinder just fine. But, if you want all that stuff in the viewfinder that's just great. I probably won't buy one, but if you want one hurray! Honestly, I took pretty good pics when the only thing in the viewfinder was the scene and a needle to tell me if the exposure was ok.

But please, stop trying to replace what I'm using now with something I don't want or need. Supplement it if you want, but quit trying to replace it.

Thanks!
--
Jim Parsons

 

[GodSpeaks]

Why is it that all you pro EVF people think that EVF's must be on every camera made. If you don't like OVF's, fine. Don't buy one. But allow me to continue to enjoy the view.

Minolta made the A2 (I think) that had a decent resolution EVF, but it appeared on only that one camera. Why? Too expensive, maybe? No demand, maybe?

As for me, I will never buy a dSLR that has only an EVF, at least until it is as good, or better, than an OVF. NOTHING can compare to a good OVF.

I suspect we will see more R1 type cameras in the future, and that should appeal to you, but it is sadly lacking in performance when compared to an OVF.

Declan
--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[LMitch]

Antonio,

As much as you are " too much pro digital/electronics", you must understand that there is one component of the photographic process that is essential. It's called the photographer. You can add in all the gizmos you want, but the more you add in, the more you remove the photographer from the scene being captured. My eye is a much more critical, detailed, high resoloution imaging device than an EVF can ever be. You're asking the equipment to do the work for you. Well, I'm sorry to say, it ain't no substitute for a good shooter. You admit that you're too caught up in the equipment aspect. That makes you unbalanced as a photographer. At the end of the day, photography is art, and no machine can be an artist by itself.

I don't know what kind of camera you're shooting with, but my OVF works just fine. And I have yet to "discover the pic is not what you wanted at home". You can manually focus on an OVF. If that's a critical part of your work, you can get focusing screens for many DSLRS. Diopters and eyepiece magnifiers are available for those that have to wear glasses all the time.

The only way an EVF would be within 50 miles of acceptable to the serious advanced amaterur and professional is for it have an image quality vastly superior to today's best HDTV. The power drain from that kind of sensor would be enormous, so one would have to design a battery system that still makes the camera usable in the field. Even if such a product were to be created, it still is no substitute for the human eye.

I'd like to offer you a bit of friendly advice. Don't spend too much time on these forums. It will make you less of a photographer and more of a Pixel-Peeper, Gearhound, and Measurebator. A year on forums and 5000 pictures means you're "just getting started". Go out and shoot more. After you've been doing it long enough (over 20 years in my case if you're wondering), you'll have a different opinion about your current gear obsession.

OVF shows you an image very similar to what you see with your eyes,
unfortunately that is not what the camera will capture. With EVF
what you SEE is much closer to what you GET than with OVF.
Additionaly you get plenty of info you just can't display on a OVF.

With OVF it's most likely you will discover the pic is not what you
wanted at home when watching the pic with the computer (btw the
monitor works just like the evf, again WYSWG). Lcd on the back of
OVF cameras is useless because low res and not light shielded, plus
you have to move the eye from viewfinder and change the your
eye-focus to a very near object (the lcd). Too slow, too
distracting, not as immediate as with the EVF. With a DSLR I
usually just check for the histogram on the field and discover the
rest at home.

MF is impossible on current DSLR OVF, better an enlarged portion
assist on EVF.

EVF offer better fov to eyeglasses wearer. Affordable DSLR OVF are
small and dark and are often a mess to adjust when wearing/not
wearing glasses. I had much easier experience with EVF where I
could see large, bright picture and infocus with or without glasses
with little or no diopter adjustement. EVF can be easily angled
like on the minolta Ax series, additionally the live lcd preview
can be angled too offering possibilities for angle photography
impossible with OVF.

Polarizers preview works better on OVF but I guess they could work
fine if there was a button to temporarely lock EVF exposure
preview. It should be easy to implement.

EVF live delay is an issue that can be fixed, I used 2 cameras with
EVF and one had really no delay, meaning that prefocused captured
really what was showing the EVF when pressing the shutter, just as
a DSLR does. AF speed can be improved with the addition of
dedicated electronics component, current cheap p&s are slow because
there is just one CPU&CCD doing all the tasks and lenses have also
slow motor (consider the price of p&s cam+lens
On a changeable lens evf camera with good dedicated lenses I expect
AF would be as fast as with DSLR.

So I think it's just a matter of time and we will have an hiquality
changeable lenses camera with hiquality lenses (probably better
than current DSLR because of removed mirror space), silent,
smaller, lighter with no flash sync limit and with such a smart
viewfinder that it will be better than having a thethered laptop on
the field! I am currently shooting with a DSLR because today they
offer best lenses and sensor, but I hope in future to shoot with a
camera like that.

For all the old-fashioned SLR shooters that claim they don't need
all this digital-electronic assistance, because, good photographer
must be able to figure in his mind how the camera will take the
shot, I suggest them to go back to film SLR. If they are so good to
make each time one shot/one dead they probably don't need digital
at all. Sorry I'm just too much pro digital/electronics and all
this debate about EVF vs OVF reminds me of the digital vs film
debate of some years ago.
--
Antonio
http://www.pbase.com/antonio_2

 

[roboto]

rob.

 

[marf]

Ok i also have a good camera with OVF, but

Why is it that all you pro EVF people think that EVF's must be on
every camera made.

Because the EVF gives information that is not there in an OVF.

If this information would be overlaid to the OVF then I would be happy with the OVF, but it is simply not there in OVf cameras.
The specific information is:

• live histogram
• on the newest EVF camera ( sony R1 ) blown out areas preview
• on the good EVF cameras the EVF shows the tonality and dynamic range of the final IMG

The OVF people say that that is all not necessary because they are so genious or they like to repeat every shot ten times until the histogram looks good, but in my opinion this simply is not done in reality and the images done with OVFs sometimes show the problems

cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.
Sorry if there are typing errors in my texts.
I usually do not check that before sending.

 

[LMitch]

But elements of the past that have gotten us to where we are today are just as viable and valuable than they ever were. When autofocus took over, people were ecstatic. And it does work well, for the most part. But it can fail you. And when it fails you, you turn to the "old-fashioned" technique of manual focusing. Even the original poster, with his technological addiction, would like manual focusing to be easier.

There will always be instances where the gear fails you. Relying too much on it is foolhardy and unwise.

rob.

 

[LMitch]

But, if one is aware and educated about the "old-fashioned" principles of lighting, exposure, and the capabilities and limits of their cameras' sensor, the information in an EVF just becomes clutter. That information allows one to become lazy in their photography, expecting the gear to do all the work.

Why is it that all you pro EVF people think that EVF's must be on
every camera made.

Because the EVF gives information that is not there in an OVF.
If this information would be overlaid to the OVF then I would be
happy with the OVF, but it is simply not there in OVf cameras.
The specific information is:

• live histogram
• on the newest EVF camera ( sony R1 ) blown out areas preview
• on the good EVF cameras the EVF shows the tonality and dynamic

range of the final IMG

The OVF people say that that is all not necessary because they are
so genious or they like to repeat every shot ten times until the
histogram looks good, but in my opinion this simply is not done in
reality and the images done with OVFs sometimes show the problems

cheers
Martin F

--------------------------------------------
My equipment is in my profile.
Sorry if there are typing errors in my texts.
I usually do not check that before sending.

 

[Darrell Spreen]

Antonio,

As much as you are " too much pro digital/electronics", you must
understand that there is one component of the photographic process
that is essential. It's called the photographer. You can add in all
the gizmos you want, but the more you add in, the more you remove
the photographer from the scene being captured. My eye is a much
more critical, detailed, high resoloution imaging device than an
EVF can ever be. You're asking the equipment to do the work for
you. Well, I'm sorry to say, it ain't no substitute for a good
shooter. You admit that you're too caught up in the equipment
aspect. That makes you unbalanced as a photographer. At the end of
the day, photography is art, and no machine can be an artist by
itself.

I am not at all a pro-digital/electronics fan (I have been a photographer
for over 40 years, however) and this isn't an issue of gizmos vs.
photographers. The eye actually has relatively poor resolution as an
optical device, but this also isn't a contest between electronics and the
eye either. The EVF is just another viewfinder. Some of them have
already been incorporated into cameras with 300+kpixel, 400+kpixel,
and 900+ kpixel EVF resolution and are virtually grainless. The EVF
reported to be in the new 4/3 camera that is stirring interest is
supposedly far better -- far better. I presume you understand we are
talking about eye viewfinders with diopter adjustments, etc, and not
the LCD displays used for review of images.

I don't know what kind of camera you're shooting with, but my OVF
works just fine. And I have yet to "discover the pic is not what
you wanted at home". You can manually focus on an OVF. If that's a
critical part of your work, you can get focusing screens for many
DSLRS. Diopters and eyepiece magnifiers are available for those
that have to wear glasses all the time.

Most of us on these forums have used SLRs for years so we
know all the stuff you like about DSLRs. We also know about
small, dim viewfinders on the newer (less expensive) DSLRs
and we know about shutter/mirror clatter all too well. EVF's already
exist that incorporate some of the advantages of replaceable
focusing screens too.

I'd like to offer you a bit of friendly advice. Don't spend too
much time on these forums. It will make you less of a photographer
and more of a Pixel-Peeper, Gearhound, and Measurebator. A year on
forums and 5000 pictures means you're "just getting started". Go
out and shoot more. After you've been doing it long enough (over 20
years in my case if you're wondering), you'll have a different
opinion about your current gear obsession.

May I offer advice in return. You are right about the gear often getting
too much attention, but there is plenty of room for improvements
in optical viewfinders. Don't close your mind.

Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html

 

[LMitch]

Darrell,

My mind isn't closed, I just prefer my eye/brain as my most trusted photographic tool. With that preference it would be tough for a manufacturer to produce an EVF that I'd find useable. Those of us that have shot for years do have a multitude of experience with gear that does and doesn't work so well. But we also have developed a mental component to shooting. A smart manufacturer would keep that in mind as new equipment is designed.

May I offer advice in return. You are right about the gear often
getting
too much attention, but there is plenty of room for improvements
in optical viewfinders. Don't close your mind.

Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html

 

[marf]

But, if one is aware and educated about the "old-fashioned"
principles of lighting, exposure, and the capabilities and limits
of their cameras' sensor, the information in an EVF just becomes
clutter.

Yes, but that is the typical "I am so genious I dont need information" answer

 

[PalmsWestPhoto]

has nothing to do with genius just with the willingness of some people to really learn a craft rather than to allow a computer to do it for you. Some things can be helped electronically of course but it is still better to know what you are doing crutches generally dont work fast enough for real life situations.

You cant always rely on crutches but some people do and when the time comes to have to do without they are in trouble.

Ask a few people about sunny 16. If you know how to use sunny 16 you can do so much in photograpphy without having to rely on crutches

just depends on how much you want to learn ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[nickleback]

But, if one is aware and educated about the "old-fashioned"
principles of lighting, exposure, and the capabilities and limits
of their cameras' sensor, the information in an EVF just becomes
clutter. That information allows one to become lazy in their
photography, expecting the gear to do all the work.

The same "lazy" comment can be (and has been) made about in-camera meters, TTL metering, coupled aperture, programmed exposure, auto focus, auto flash, TTL flash, motor wind, etc. These are all conveniences for the photographer, they are not necessary to make an image.

FWIW, my first SLR was a Zeiss Contaflex.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Geir Ove]

EVF's get high enough resolution and good enough color.

It will happen, just as Digital did "happen" when CCD's got good enough: They outdid film.

Have I used DSLRs lately: Oh yes, I have a Canon 20D, I think it is a DSLR. Have I use EVF's lateley? Oh yes, I have a Minolta A1, it has an EVF, not good enough, BUT it does show me an imgage MUCH closer to what I will get than my 20D does. And it is MUCH easier to lock the exposure at the correct value (for the ccd) looking at the dark / light colors in the EVF.

Geor Ove
--
My album at: http://objective.bitfikler.com/geirove/web/