OVF vs EVF put to rest

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions
Draek
Draek Senior Member • Posts: 2,028
Re: This debate sometimes get a bit odd :)

Grevture wrote:

And as for using EVF:s with still image cameras, all brands except Canon has at least one model with a EVF (yes, even Nikon).

Actually, so does Canon: the SX40 has an electronic viewfinder, and though DPR reports the freshly-announced SX50 will use a tunnel OVF in its place, B&H says otherwise and product shots seem to agree with them. Besides, I think not even Canon is crazy enough to put a non-TTL viewfinder on a superzoom camera with a 1200mm-e lens.

No, the only one which lacks an EVF stills camera isn't Canon, but Sigma. Forgotten as they may often be

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
JacquesBalthazar
JacquesBalthazar Contributing Member • Posts: 685
Re: the video advertisement

Piginho wrote:

Also, bear in mind that A99 OVF is 2.4Mp, which means that you can only see 10% of what your sensor will record! When EVF has as much detail as the final image, your argument will hold water

That is a good point, though there is some room between 2.4 MP and 24MP or 36MP. The latter might really be overkill for an EVF application, while the first is indeed not quite enough. There is also progress to be made in signal boosting for low light applications. EVF all too often looks like a '70s TV with bad reception when the light dims. Still, when light is really low, you can make out the details of what is out there, while the OVF will only let you see what your eyes can see, not what the sensor can capture.

Personally , while I have much more pleasure using an OVF, I do understand the promise brought by EVF.

In the current state of technology, good EVFs are really great to shoot video from the viewfinder, or to test effects and settings from the viewfinder. But really really crappy (for me) to use on sunny days, with the sort of corrective shades I need to wear. Had a very hard time using my NEX7 yesterday. It was very frustrating. I assume a A99/77 would be just as annoying for me.

For the rest, kuddos to Sony for pushing the enveloppe and innovating so much in fundamental designs. The A99 has a really yummy spec sheet!

 JacquesBalthazar's gear list:JacquesBalthazar's gear list
Nikon Df Leica M10 Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 Nokton +15 more
Draek
Draek Senior Member • Posts: 2,028
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

No, the ACTUAL reality is shown only through a rangefinder. Your SLR's TTL-OVF is---literally---nothing but a mirror trick.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
JacquesBalthazar
JacquesBalthazar Contributing Member • Posts: 685
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Draek wrote:

No, the ACTUAL reality is shown only through a rangefinder. Your SLR's TTL-OVF is---literally---nothing but a mirror trick.

Yep, true, SLR TTL is a (great) mirror trick!

But, no, actual reality is not shown through a rangefinder. A rangefinder is a complex optical device allowing triangular measurement of distance (knowing there also exists other types of rangefinders using laser, sonnar, etc, but outside of this conversation).

Cameras equipped with optical rangefinders usually have an optical viewfinder offering a direct light path from subject to user eye. In fact through a number of lenses to allow precise framing.

"Modern" rangefinder cameras (M3 and later) have a high quality viewfinder that integrates part of the rangefinder mechanism. Older rangefinder cameras use separate eyepieces for the viewfinder (to frame picture) and for the rangefinder itself (to set distance) (Leica III and many others).

You can perfectly well imagine cameras with a rangefinder accessory attached, but no viewfinder at all (Leica I with rangefinder in accessory shoe).

And cameras with direct optical viewfinder, and no rangefinder at all (Minox 35 and hundreds of others).

 JacquesBalthazar's gear list:JacquesBalthazar's gear list
Nikon Df Leica M10 Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 Nokton +15 more
Draek
Draek Senior Member • Posts: 2,028
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

JacquesBalthazar wrote:

Yep, true, SLR TTL is a (great) mirror trick!

I'd disagree about the "great" part, given the distortions caused by putting the capturing lens in between. My eyes have a much deeper DOF than a 85/1.4 wide open, you know.

As for the rest of your post, you're right of course, but I didn't want to get too technical as few around here seem to have used a rangefinder camera in their lives, and merely saying non-TTL OVF would've made them think of the horribly-distorted view of the tunnel VFs present in most film (and some digital) compacts through history.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
Eleson Senior Member • Posts: 1,196
Why can't everyone be allowed to their opinion and preference?

I have mine, but I don't mind anybody having theirs,
as long as it is not pushed down my throat.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Erland

 Eleson's gear list:Eleson's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony SLT-A77 Sony 50mm F1.4 Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +3 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 32,219
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

While I prefer EVFs myself there is no way you can say they are "way better" than OVFs. OVFs do have some advantages and as long as that is true there will be disagreement as to which is better. It is useless to keep bringing this debate up again and again by either side as it is a waste of time.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Sony RX10 III +9 more
JacquesBalthazar
JacquesBalthazar Contributing Member • Posts: 685
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Draek wrote:

My eyes have a much deeper DOF than a 85/1.4 wide open, you know.

Cannot disagree with that.

 JacquesBalthazar's gear list:JacquesBalthazar's gear list
Nikon Df Leica M10 Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 Nokton +15 more
Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

tbcass wrote:

While I prefer EVFs myself there is no way you can say they are "way better" than OVFs. OVFs do have some advantages and as long as that is true there will be disagreement as to which is better. It is useless to keep bringing this debate up again and again by either side as it is a waste of time.
--

Quite right, neither is better in an absolute sense. One is better for you and another for me. It depends on what our personal priorities are when we look through the viewfinder and also on the way in which we like to work.

The problem here, is that quite a number of EVF fans are trying to ram them down our throats, before EVF is as good as we'd like it to be for the way we work. Telling us to "gt*o" if we don't like what Sony are doing. The fact is, that Sony is doing a lot of good stuff (not least by having their link with Zeiss) and now that I've made an investment into Sony, I want to stay. But I don't have to accept EVF as it stands today, in order to stay with Sony. I can buy secondhand. I prefer to buy this way, with most of the depreciation taken out of the product by the rich boys who must have the latest tech on day one. Thanks for paying for me to enjoy my photography!

Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

JacquesBalthazar wrote:

Draek wrote:

My eyes have a much deeper DOF than a 85/1.4 wide open, you know.

Cannot disagree with that.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here, but whether you look through an EVF or an OVF, you want to be able to have a means of seeing the affect of your selected aperture on your final image. If you set your 85/1.4 wide open you will see shallow DOF through the viewfinder. If stopped down you want some kind of DOF preview. You can do this with either if they are implemented well.

Not wishing to fuel the debate again, but the reality is that you can resolve more detail with your eye through OVF than on 2.4Mp EVF, so you ought to be able to get a better impression of how your OOF areas will look in the final image.

So, what exactly was the point that I obviously missed?

TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,725
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

JacquesBalthazar wrote:

Draek wrote:

My eyes have a much deeper DOF than a 85/1.4 wide open, you know.

Cannot disagree with that.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here, but whether you look through an EVF or an OVF, you want to be able to have a means of seeing the affect of your selected aperture on your final image. If you set your 85/1.4 wide open you will see shallow DOF through the viewfinder. If stopped down you want some kind of DOF preview. You can do this with either if they are implemented well.

Not a single OVF found in a DSLR will represent the DOF accurately at such an aperture. Biggest reason being the ground glass. An EVF will represent the DOF as it will be captured.

Not wishing to fuel the debate again, but the reality is that you can resolve more detail with your eye through OVF than on 2.4Mp EVF, so you ought to be able to get a better impression of how your OOF areas will look in the final image.

No OVF with ground glass will be able to show you detail equivalent of each pixel in say the final 24MP image, regardless of how good your eyes are. An EVF can, regardless of its resolution, as long as there's a quick magnification button that allows you to magnify up to pixel level (of the sensor).

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 32,219
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

The problem here, is that quite a number of EVF fans are trying to ram them down our throats, before EVF is as good as we'd like it to be for the way we work. Telling us to "gt*o" if we don't like what Sony are doing.

True but there are an equal number of OVF fans that constantly post how much EVFs suck so it seems to me both sides are wrong.

-- hide signature --
 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Sony RX10 III +9 more
JacquesBalthazar
JacquesBalthazar Contributing Member • Posts: 685
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest
1

Piginho wrote:

JacquesBalthazar wrote:

Draek wrote:

My eyes have a much deeper DOF than a 85/1.4 wide open, you know.

Cannot disagree with that.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here

not very important, but my personal point was that I much prefer OVFs at this moment in time. I would not be surprised to state a different view in 2 years time, when EVFs will have progressed further on resolution, quality of signal amplification in low light and useability in contrasty/sunny situations.

But I have to concede to Draek that in terms of having full view of the "real" scene, the SLR "mirror trick" comes with its own gremlins. A view through a 85mm f1.4 will not show the real scene. irt will show a thin slice of it. And using DoF preview comes with another set of gremlins including quickly darkening OVF and difficulty to assess what is in focus on contemporary DLRS screens.

In theory EVF does not carry such gremlins. Saying that SLR prism gives a direct view of real reality is not really true. But I still vote OVF myself.

 JacquesBalthazar's gear list:JacquesBalthazar's gear list
Nikon Df Leica M10 Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Voigtlander 50mm F1.5 Nokton +15 more
seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Jay Jenner wrote:

Ha ha.

Sony says - our digitally enhanced reality as viewed through our Tru-Finder is better that your silly old fashioned ACTUAL reality as viewed through your view-finder.

And everyone knows that there is absolutely NO distortion with a 5 sided prism...

This is quite comical. And so many people are convinced by it too!

I am one of those people who are convinced. I own both an EVF and an OVF based camera so I actually speak from experience and not from fanboyism.
--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,228
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

Not a single OVF found in a DSLR will represent the DOF accurately at such an aperture. Biggest reason being the ground glass. An EVF will represent the DOF as it will be captured.

No, it won't, for at least two reasons. First, the displays don't have enough resolution to prevent sampling blur from adding to OOF blur. Second, DOF can't even be defined at capture time, much less displayed, because it's dependent on the final viewing size and distance, neither of which are available at capture time.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Canon EOS 550D +22 more
Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

tbcass wrote:

Piginho wrote:

The problem here, is that quite a number of EVF fans are trying to ram them down our throats, before EVF is as good as we'd like it to be for the way we work. Telling us to "gt*o" if we don't like what Sony are doing.

True but there are an equal number of OVF fans that constantly post how much EVFs suck so it seems to me both sides are wrong.

Of all posters expressing a preference for OVF, I haven't seen one post trying to ram OVF down the throats of EVF users. Some EVF fans have used very aggressive and threatening language. I've not seen any of that from an OVF fan. Pretty well every OVF fan has conceded that EVF has some merit and many have said that when it improves sufficiently for their purposes they will move across, me included.

Seems to me that current OVF users are a far more civilised breed.

Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

No OVF with ground glass will be able to show you detail equivalent of each pixel in say the final 24MP image, regardless of how good your eyes are. An EVF can, regardless of its resolution, as long as there's a quick magnification button that allows you to magnify up to pixel level (of the sensor).

And from where have you derived these facts? Please provide links/references!

Maybe by doing so you can show us just how many pixels can be resolved, specifically on an A900 screen, not forgetting that there are 3 to choose from.

Sure as hell gonna be more than a measly 2.4Mp.

You talk the talk, let's see if you can walk the walk!

Jay Jenner
Jay Jenner Contributing Member • Posts: 744
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

seilerbird666 wrote:

I am one of those people who are convinced. I own both an EVF and an OVF based camera so I actually speak from experience and not from fanboyism.
--

Well fair enough then. I know that some OVFs on low end DSLRs are pretty poxy. So it may well be the case that there are some modern EVFs that will give you a better view. Maybe I have been spoiled using big bright OVFs on decent DSLRs

 Jay Jenner's gear list:Jay Jenner's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +2 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 32,219
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

Of all posters expressing a preference for OVF, I haven't seen one post trying to ram OVF down the throats of EVF users. Some EVF fans have used very aggressive and threatening language. I've not seen any of that from an OVF fan. Pretty well every OVF fan has conceded that EVF has some merit and many have said that when it improves sufficiently for their purposes they will move across, me included.

Seems to me that current OVF users are a far more civilised breed.

I don't want to argue about it but if you go back to the time that the A55 first came out you will find out that over the last 2.5 years there have been every bit as many rude, obnoxious and opinionated OVF fans as there have been EVF fans. Every time somebody posts how much they like the EVF there are certain individuals who will jump in to tell them how wrong they are and they aren't always polite about it. You haven't been a mamber of DPR long enough to have really seen it.

-- hide signature --
 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD Sony RX10 III +9 more
TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,725
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

Not a single OVF found in a DSLR will represent the DOF accurately at such an aperture. Biggest reason being the ground glass. An EVF will represent the DOF as it will be captured.

No, it won't, for at least two reasons. First, the displays don't have enough resolution to prevent sampling blur from adding to OOF blur.

Yes it will and if the sampling blur would make any visible impact worth noting, the second point that you didn't quote comes in for a rescue.

Second, DOF can't even be defined at capture time, much less displayed, because it's dependent on the final viewing size and distance, neither of which are available at capture time.

In theory, in practise that is only an issue if these were constantly changing to begin with, in which case the whole DOF preview on DSLR's becomes a laughable point anyway.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads