OVF vs EVF put to rest

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

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, for the very reason mentioned in the second point that you didn't quote.

Magnification will obviously decrease DOF, which is why I chose to ignore that point.

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.

Which it is, for OVF and EVF.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

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

In my book civilized people don't lie and make up stories to prove their point:

Too bad every subject in that video could easily have been shot using LV and cdaf which would allow the same functions such as focus peaking on pentax, magnify, histograms ect. The only thing EVF allows is for you to use LV like functions while peeking into a sun shaded hole with one eye. I can buy a Hoodman and accomplish the exact same thing with an LCD, sans only PDAF (although LV is still quite fast on a K30 for example) and which will not matter once on sensor PDAF takes hold.

SLT is a dying technology. On sensor PDAF will eventually even out LV without losing light in every shot. The fastest LV cameras today are already better in every way other than tracking.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

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

Yeah, civilized...

LOL show me a source that PROVES the sun will come up tomorrow genius? It's called speculation, but its likely. On sensor PDAF is here already, it does the same thing a SLT mirror does (offers PDAF with LV) but without losing light. As soon as it's perfected or at least sped up to match SLT pdaf speeds, there will be NO reason to have an SLT mirror. Sony is developing into a doomed tech and they will either abandon it for full Hybrid AF or get stomped. I guess the exception is if you want to cling to the fail a99 overlapping AF and buy an entire new collection of overpriced sony lenses. Go for it, that would make you look real smart.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

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

My how civilized a breed they are:

It's Sony propaganda pure and simple, especially as their first point, as I pointed out earlier, is wrong. I agree with dka91 that Sony doesn't have, or isn't going to come out with, an OVF camera, so they have to push the superiority of EVF, even if all the advantages aren't true.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

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!

Here's one simplified explanation and example:

http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2007/09/21/live-view-versus-the-cheating-dslr-viewfinder/

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.

Try a 50mm lens on your A900 with your type M matte. Now try any recent Sony DSLR/SLT/NEX camera with a main sensor LV implementation that allows magnifying to pixel level next to it with the same lens, focusing on the same distant subject. See the huge difference in detail. Seeing is believing, no amount of theorizing or talk from anyone can make a better case than seeing it yourself.

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

Did you not get the magnifying part?

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

I did the walk, I have tested both. From your previous post, it's pretty clear that your experience with Sony's recent LV implementations is either severely limited or rather non existent.

TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

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, for the very reason mentioned in the second point that you didn't quote.

Magnification will obviously decrease DOF, which is why I chose to ignore that point.

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size. A good set of brains knows that when you're magnifying, distances may look larger too. For things like critical macro focusing, what counts is what's in focus and what isn't. For which magnifying provides the most accurate tool.

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.

Which it is, for OVF and EVF.

If you have a very narrow scope. People doing near or fully static photography, for example certain macro work, have valued a good LV implementation for this very reason for years.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Magnifying magnifies the blur circles too, which makes circles visible that aren't visible without the magnification. In other words, it changes the CoC, which changes the DOF. At high magnification, the blur circles are bigger and easier to see, thus you have less DOF.

See? These are just differently magnified views of the same image.

If you have a very narrow scope. People doing near or fully static photography, for example certain macro work, have valued a good LV implementation for this very reason for years.

For a given print size and viewing distance, neither of which are known 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 SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
OntarioJohn
OntarioJohn Senior Member • Posts: 1,959
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

I do not understand the point.

If I like beer x and you like y, we sit and talk.

I LIKE my a77 with it's new ability to show me what is going on. I think it is better in most cases. I won't buy into the old technology any more, but I was at a public event on Sunday and it was blinding bright. Brilliant and more.

Some guy pulls out a Konika Minolta camera, a great 2 foot flash on top, FILM camera, and takes a roll of film. I was waiting for the chariots and old style artists with blocks of stone and chisels. Man that was odd.

A good 1/2 of the photos taken were done with flash. That too was weird. I had trouble not getting my shots blown out due to the sun.

You say tomato and I say tomato,
etc. Let's agree to disagree.

I LOVE EVF. I don't want no OVF. So what?

Let's kiss and make up and take photos.

Soon people will pour over the walls and dominate. Not yet though.

'cmon, I understand why these threads are started, you can take great shots of the Sears Tower, but no one replies or bothers with them. So for those who need or crave attention you have to be controversial. Lovely.l

 OntarioJohn's gear list:OntarioJohn's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +3 more
OntarioJohn
OntarioJohn Senior Member • Posts: 1,959
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

 OntarioJohn's gear list:OntarioJohn's gear list
Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony SLT-A77 Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM +3 more
TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Magnifying magnifies the blur circles too, which makes circles visible that aren't visible without the magnification. In other words, it changes the CoC, which changes the DOF. At high magnification, the blur circles are bigger and easier to see, thus you have less DOF.

See? These are just differently magnified views of the same image.

Those examples represent different output sizes, which this isn't about. This was about seeing the DOF that the sensor sees. What you can see when magnifying, you can see in the final image if printed at a large enough size with a close enough viewing distance to see all the detail captured.

If the size is smaller than that and/or viewing distance larger, the whole discussion becomes moot anyway, since these minute differences become irrelevant to begin with.

But you're free to throw in more theoretical differences.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

OntarioJohn wrote:

I LOVE EVF. I don't want no OVF. So what?

Let's kiss and make up and take photos.

If people like me don't speak out on the trouble with EVFs, we might end up with cameras that only have EVFs, and that will likely mean new cameras can't shoot about 90% of the shots I take. I don't want that to happen.

Understand now?

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Magnifying magnifies the blur circles too, which makes circles visible that aren't visible without the magnification. In other words, it changes the CoC, which changes the DOF. At high magnification, the blur circles are bigger and easier to see, thus you have less DOF.

See? These are just differently magnified views of the same image.

Those examples represent different output sizes, which this isn't about.

Magnifying an image in the viewfinder is the exact same thing as magnifying them on your computer screen.

This was about seeing the DOF that the sensor sees.

There's no such thing.

What you can see when magnifying, you can see in the final image if printed at a large enough size with a close enough viewing distance to see all the detail captured.

And can't see if you print smaller.

If the size is smaller than that and/or viewing distance larger, the whole discussion becomes moot anyway, since these minute differences become irrelevant to begin with.

No, the DOF just gets larger.

But you're free to throw in more theoretical differences.

It's not theoretical - it's absolutely real. A 5x EVF magnification is the same as a 5x larger print size or a 5x smaller CoC.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

OntarioJohn wrote:

I LOVE EVF. I don't want no OVF. So what?

Let's kiss and make up and take photos.

If people like me don't speak out on the trouble with EVFs, we might end up with cameras that only have EVFs, and that will likely mean new cameras can't shoot about 90% of the shots I take. I don't want that to happen.

Understand now?

Seems like your energy is better spent in the Canon forum, preventing Canon from making the switch. Because last time I checked, you weren't interested in shooting Sony DSLR/SLT's anyway.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

OntarioJohn wrote:

I LOVE EVF. I don't want no OVF. So what?

Let's kiss and make up and take photos.

If people like me don't speak out on the trouble with EVFs, we might end up with cameras that only have EVFs, and that will likely mean new cameras can't shoot about 90% of the shots I take. I don't want that to happen.

Understand now?

Seems like your energy is better spent in the Canon forum, preventing Canon from making the switch. Because last time I checked, you weren't interested in shooting Sony DSLR/SLT's anyway.

It would be best if Sony and everyone else's EVFs failed in the market, so Canon and Nikon don't switch.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

It doesn't decrease the DOF at all since that's a physical distance independent of viewing size.

Sorry, wrong answer.

Magnifying magnifies the blur circles too, which makes circles visible that aren't visible without the magnification. In other words, it changes the CoC, which changes the DOF. At high magnification, the blur circles are bigger and easier to see, thus you have less DOF.

See? These are just differently magnified views of the same image.

Those examples represent different output sizes, which this isn't about.

Magnifying an image in the viewfinder is the exact same thing as magnifying them on your computer screen.

This was about seeing the DOF that the sensor sees.

There's no such thing.

Yes there is, the only difference is in the magnification and/or PPI or DPI in output affecting appearence to our eyes/brains. And the point was whether you would see differences or not. Ofcourse the discussion assumes a large enough print and close enough viewing distance that allows to see all the detail captured to begin with, because smaller/less makes minute differences discussed here moot anyway compared to the relatively huge differences discussed earlier.

TrojMacReady
TrojMacReady Veteran Member • Posts: 8,729
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

OntarioJohn wrote:

I LOVE EVF. I don't want no OVF. So what?

Let's kiss and make up and take photos.

If people like me don't speak out on the trouble with EVFs, we might end up with cameras that only have EVFs, and that will likely mean new cameras can't shoot about 90% of the shots I take. I don't want that to happen.

Understand now?

Seems like your energy is better spent in the Canon forum, preventing Canon from making the switch. Because last time I checked, you weren't interested in shooting Sony DSLR/SLT's anyway.

It would be best if Sony and everyone else's EVFs failed in the market, so Canon and Nikon don't switch.

The blood was there, here's the motive.

seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Piginho wrote:

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

Talk about a civilized troll...

It would be best if Sony and everyone else's EVFs failed in the market, so Canon and Nikon don't switch.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

If people like me don't speak out on the trouble with EVFs, we might end up with cameras that only have EVFs, and that will likely mean new cameras can't shoot about 90% of the shots I take. I don't want that to happen.

Understand now?

This may be the all time stupidest post again EVF I have ever read. 90% of your shots won't come out with an EVF??? How silly.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

seilerbird666 wrote:

90% of your shots won't come out with an EVF???

That's right. I know, EVF lovers don't get that because they don't put demands on their viewfinders, but some of us do.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,739
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

This was about seeing the DOF that the sensor sees.

There's no such thing.

Yes there is, the only difference is in the magnification and/or PPI or DPI in output affecting appearence to our eyes/brains.

LOL!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=21221392

And note the two posts that follow.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads