OVF vs EVF put to rest

Started Sep 16, 2012 | Discussions
seilerbird666
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

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.
--

ROTFLMAO

Let's see some photos that you have taken with your OVF that I can't take with my EVF.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,437
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Seilerbird

It seems that every time someone posts something you do not agree with you label them a troll or accuse them of lying. Please understand that folks have different opinions and should be entitled to express them without being insulted (you did a pretty good job with Moimoi a day or two ago, didn't you?) Some may be much more experienced photographers than you and see something you do not.

So far as the OP is concerned

Please also understand that there are some folks who prefer OVF and are entitled to their opinions and selection of camera to suit them. We all got it that you like an EVF, go out and enjoy it and perhaps not waste time stirring up old debates

tom

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

TrojMacReady wrote:

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/

This doesn't answer the question in any way, though it was an interesting read. Also, ground glass screens haven't been used in SLRs or DSLRs for more than 30 years. Viewfinder screens are plastic and some are fresnel type. Minolta were at the forefront of this technology and most recently in Sony implementation used spherical acute matte screens. The closest that I could get to any kind of information regarding resolving power is in the following link.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67444.0

It has to be born in mind that this link is talking about ground glass, but a simple calculation would indicate at least 9Mp resolution should be possible. How this relates to the more modern screens in a Sony A900 for example, I cannot say, as the information seems to be unavailable. What makes me laugh is your assertion that "No OVF with ground glass will be able to show you the detail equivalent of each pixel in say the final 24MP image," when you have no definitive evidence to back this claim.

As it happens, you may be right, but that's yet to be determined. What is almost certainly true, based on the research that I've done so far, is that the OVF in an A900 or similar will have at least around 4 X the resolving power of a 2.4Mp EVF.

Also, by posting your link and some of your latest comments, you are attempting to move the goalposts of the debate. You're trying to make it about DOF and how it's seen in the viewfinder. What's the title of this thread?

OVF fans have been talking about a variety of things, including DR, lag in the display, resolution and so on. My question to you was about the source of your knowledge about resolution on GG screens, not DOF issues.

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.

Again, you don't answer the question, because you don't know the answer, so instead you offer an anecdotal response. FWIW, I have had a Minolta 50mm f1.4 for some time now and used it on my A550 (which I believe has a good LV implementation, including a manual focus LV mode) and of course I have used it on my A900.

If you have time to work in this way, then I would agree that magnifying to near pixel level can be useful as a focus aid. But then this discussion was not about LV in any case, it's about EVF and OVF. BTW, I hardly ever used either LV mode on my A550, preferring to use the OVF, even though the A550 OVF is really crappy! Oh, and I have tried EVF and don't like it, even though I accept that it has a lot of benefits.

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

Did you not get the magnifying part?

If you are taking pictures under time pressure, say for example a wedding (I've done several as the official photographer) and the weather is poor or changeable and the subjects are restless, you do need to work quickly. In this circumstance, I don't want to have to waste time accessing a magnified image, especially as people move all the time anyway. I just want to focus (auto or manual depending on need), shoot, recompose, focus, shoot and so on. No time for image magnification. In this situation, for me OVFs better natural unmagnified resolution easily beats EVFs limited, unmagnified resolution, making focus checking and all sorts of compositional checks easier. Are the subjects blinking, smiling, frowning etc.

If you're not working under time pressure, what's wrong with intelligent preview on the A900? White balance, exposure, DOF, histogram and all manner of things can be checked this way. Yes, I know, you can't magnify the image, but so what, if you've got plenty of time, use intelligent preview, make adjustments as required and shoot. Then check the resulting image in magnified view. The image produced is virtually free, so what does it matter.

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.

Not true, as seen from above, I do have relevant experience of Sony's LV. When I say talk the talk and walk the walk, I'm referring to you making claims, such as your supposed knowledge of GG screen resolving power, thus talking the talk, but failing to back up these claims with any kind of scientific data, this failing to walk the walk.

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 52,220
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

seilerbird666 wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

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.
--

ROTFLMAO

Let's see some photos that you have taken with your OVF that I can't take with my EVF.

I guarantee you won't get it, but what the heck.

This is an R/C model that was going about 200mph and was only maybe 60 feet away. You could never track it with a laggy EVF - too slow. It was hard to even turn my body fast enough.

High-speed R/C helicopter aerobatics performance in total darkness. An EVF gets so laggy in the dark it's hard to track a moving child, much less a helicopter capable of pulling 18g's.

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

You have never owned an EVF based camera and probably never even used one or you would not make such silly statements. Those are some nice shots but certainly doable with any SLT. You should stay in the Canon forum where you belong. You are just making a fool of yourself here.
--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

RandyPD Regular Member • Posts: 255
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

For me, I'm sold on the EVF. For difficult lighting scenes (especially low light ones ) I just put spot metering on, scan the scene until I see the perfect balance of lighting (or the effect I want), press AEL button (set to toggle on/off) to lock the exposure, then recompose. You can NEVER do this with OVF, you can see the shutter/aperture values change but you never have that visual confirmation. I never had to bracket with EVF.

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

i don't mind people expressing different opinions. It is the ones that have to make up lies to tell me how superior OVFs are over EVF that I respond to such as this load of crap:

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.

moimoi deserves everything he gets for complaining about fuzzy shots from the a99 that he cherry picked from the Internet while ignoring the sharp photos. And then when they sharp a99 photos do get posted here he claims they aren't from the "real world" Where were they taken, on Mars?

If you don't like my comments then put me on your ignore list. But don't tell me what I can and cannot post.
--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

Andrew Cruickshank Senior Member • Posts: 1,693
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

ljfinger wrote:

I guarantee you won't get it, but what the heck.

This is an R/C model that was going about 200mph and was only maybe 60 feet away. You could never track it with a laggy EVF - too slow. It was hard to even turn my body fast enough.

Doubt there would be any problem getting it with A65/A77 and presumably A99.

Spent Saturday doing airshow shots with an A700 and A77.

Biggest problem with framing was physically turning fast enough and pulling back zoom on fast approachs. That obviously affected both cameras.

The only advantage that I found with the A700 is in low contrast very bright conditions where the AF is struggling against a small distant low contrast target. It's a bit easier to make out OOF difficult targets with the OVF in the these conditions which makes tracking the target easier while the AF catches up.

The A77 had no perceptible display lag. With first electronic curtain shutter it reacts slightly quicker IMO to capture crossing targets. I found I was using the A700 on high speed drive mode to capture bursts whereas with the A77 I was clicking of single shots.

The only time it was obvious that it wasn't an OVF in the A77 was when dealing with helicopters or slower moving propellers where there is a flicker effect like a movie.

-- hide signature --

Andrew.

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

seilerbird666 wrote:

i don't mind people expressing different opinions. It is the ones that have to make up lies to tell me how superior OVFs are over EVF that I respond to such as this load of crap:

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.

moimoi deserves everything he gets for complaining about fuzzy shots from the a99 that he cherry picked from the Internet while ignoring the sharp photos. And then when they sharp a99 photos do get posted here he claims they aren't from the "real world" Where were they taken, on Mars?

If you don't like my comments then put me on your ignore list. But don't tell me what I can and cannot post.

Have I told you what you can and cannot post?

Why don't you go back through the hundred and more posts in this thread and just check the tone of the comments. I haven't seen any OVF fans tell EVF fans to "gt*o" of here, but have seen it from EVF fans. I find you hard core EVF fans a bit sad really. There's plenty on here who use both and express balanced and fair views. Almost every OVF fan has expressed an understanding of the benefits of EVF, but that it's just not for them yet. EVF hard core fans seem to think that they have to persuade, or even bully the world into believing that current EVF technology is some kind of photographic panacea. Maybe because they feel they have some responsibility to help get it fully established, or to ensure they haven't wasted their investment in lenses etc. Rest assured, your investment is safe and EVF will be here for the foreseeable future and it will improve.

But for me, I'm not convinced yet and I most definitely won't be bullied by EVF fans, so you can insult me as much as you want. I'm going nowhere!

Also, so what if someone likes Canon or Nikon. So what. There opinion is worth as much as yours.

OVFs are superior in some ways and EVFs in others. We just decide, based on our personal priorities, which we prefer and if we can afford both and enjoy both for different situations, all the better.

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

Piginho wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

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/

This doesn't answer the question in any way, though it was an interesting read. Also, ground glass screens haven't been used in SLRs or DSLRs for more than 30 years. Viewfinder screens are plastic and some are fresnel type. Minolta were at the forefront of this technology and most recently in Sony implementation used spherical acute matte screens.

Is this a discussion of semantics or one with substance? Of course they are no longer made of real glass, but most people still refer to them as ground glass. Glasses that people wear are often made of plastics too, are you going to correct people calling them glasses still?

The closest that I could get to any kind of information regarding resolving power is in the following link.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67444.0

It has to be born in mind that this link is talking about ground glass, but a simple calculation would indicate at least 9Mp resolution should be possible. How this relates to the more modern screens in a Sony A900 for example, I cannot say, as the information seems to be unavailable. What makes me laugh is your assertion that "No OVF with ground glass will be able to show you the detail equivalent of each pixel in say the final 24MP image," when you have no definitive evidence to back this claim.

You mean I have 20/12.5 vision and actually compared them (the A900 is still the OVF benchmarks for DSLR's) rather than your theorizing and assumptions about EVF's? Yes, you're funny like that at times.

As it happens, you may be right, but that's yet to be determined.

You mean you have yet to make the comparison yourself, apparently.

What is almost certainly true, based on the research that I've done so far, is that the OVF in an A900 or similar will have at least around 4 X the resolving power of a 2.4Mp EVF.

Do share the exact calculations you used and all the variables involved.

Also, by posting your link and some of your latest comments, you are attempting to move the goalposts of the debate. You're trying to make it about DOF and how it's seen in the viewfinder. What's the title of this thread?

I first reacted to someone making claims about DOF preview, suggesting they are similar in their representation of DOF (preview). That was you. The rest of that discussion wasn't with you.

My question to you was about the source of your knowledge about resolution on GG screens, not DOF issues.

You asked what the claim that GG limits the resolution, is based on. I said experience and gave an example. You're in the process of admitting it's true.

After that question, I didn't reply to you any further about DOF issues. Have you activated the posting tree or are you staring at a flat view of the forums?

OP BMWX5 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,142
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

You are very new to this forum. Try reading the postings when A55 came out and you'll see so many OVF defenders attacking the EVF technology.

Piginho wrote:

seilerbird666 wrote:

i don't mind people expressing different opinions. It is the ones that have to make up lies to tell me how superior OVFs are over EVF that I respond to such as this load of crap:

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.

moimoi deserves everything he gets for complaining about fuzzy shots from the a99 that he cherry picked from the Internet while ignoring the sharp photos. And then when they sharp a99 photos do get posted here he claims they aren't from the "real world" Where were they taken, on Mars?

If you don't like my comments then put me on your ignore list. But don't tell me what I can and cannot post.

Have I told you what you can and cannot post?

Why don't you go back through the hundred and more posts in this thread and just check the tone of the comments. I haven't seen any OVF fans tell EVF fans to "gt*o" of here, but have seen it from EVF fans. I find you hard core EVF fans a bit sad really. There's plenty on here who use both and express balanced and fair views. Almost every OVF fan has expressed an understanding of the benefits of EVF, but that it's just not for them yet. EVF hard core fans seem to think that they have to persuade, or even bully the world into believing that current EVF technology is some kind of photographic panacea. Maybe because they feel they have some responsibility to help get it fully established, or to ensure they haven't wasted their investment in lenses etc. Rest assured, your investment is safe and EVF will be here for the foreseeable future and it will improve.

But for me, I'm not convinced yet and I most definitely won't be bullied by EVF fans, so you can insult me as much as you want. I'm going nowhere!

Also, so what if someone likes Canon or Nikon. So what. There opinion is worth as much as yours.

OVFs are superior in some ways and EVFs in others. We just decide, based on our personal priorities, which we prefer and if we can afford both and enjoy both for different situations, all the better.

Manfred Bachmann Senior Member • Posts: 1,029
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest
1

Evf is one of the reason why no real pro will ever buy a sony a99! all the others, like canon, nikon, leica, hasselblad, pentax and many more stay with mirror, because pros dosent want eyf´s. if evf´s are so good, why not put it on the wall instead of a window, lol! Compare an A900 with an A77, the A77 evf is just ridiculous!
manfred

-- hide signature --

Pbase supporter, NPS Austria
http://www.studio96.at

 Manfred Bachmann's gear list:Manfred Bachmann's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D7200 Sony Alpha a7R II Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +9 more
Piginho Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

TrojMacReady wrote:

Piginho wrote:

TrojMacReady wrote:

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/

This doesn't answer the question in any way, though it was an interesting read. Also, ground glass screens haven't been used in SLRs or DSLRs for more than 30 years. Viewfinder screens are plastic and some are fresnel type. Minolta were at the forefront of this technology and most recently in Sony implementation used spherical acute matte screens.

Is this a discussion of semantics or one with substance? Of course they are no longer made of real glass, but most people still refer to them as ground glass. Glasses that people wear are often made of plastics too, are you going to correct people calling them glasses still?

The closest that I could get to any kind of information regarding resolving power is in the following link.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67444.0

It has to be born in mind that this link is talking about ground glass, but a simple calculation would indicate at least 9Mp resolution should be possible. How this relates to the more modern screens in a Sony A900 for example, I cannot say, as the information seems to be unavailable. What makes me laugh is your assertion that "No OVF with ground glass will be able to show you the detail equivalent of each pixel in say the final 24MP image," when you have no definitive evidence to back this claim.

You mean I have 20/12.5 vision and actually compared them (the A900 is still the OVF benchmarks for DSLR's) rather than your theorizing and assumptions about EVF's? Yes, you're funny like that at times.

As it happens, you may be right, but that's yet to be determined.

You mean you have yet to make the comparison yourself, apparently.

What is almost certainly true, based on the research that I've done so far, is that the OVF in an A900 or similar will have at least around 4 X the resolving power of a 2.4Mp EVF.

Do share the exact calculations you used and all the variables involved.

Also, by posting your link and some of your latest comments, you are attempting to move the goalposts of the debate. You're trying to make it about DOF and how it's seen in the viewfinder. What's the title of this thread?

I first reacted to someone making claims about DOF preview, suggesting they are similar in their representation of DOF (preview). That was you. The rest of that discussion wasn't with you.

My question to you was about the source of your knowledge about resolution on GG screens, not DOF issues.

You asked what the claim that GG limits the resolution, is based on. I said experience and gave an example. You're in the process of admitting it's true.

After that question, I didn't reply to you any further about DOF issues. Have you activated the posting tree or are you staring at a flat view of the forums?

The link you provided as an answer to my question about how you can to have knowledge that a GG screen couldn't resolve 24MP, had nothing to do with the question. Yes, it did relate to DOF as seen on a ground glass screen, which is something that I have also referred to, but it had nothing to do with resolving power, which if you go back far enough on this and similar threads, has been my personal issue with EVF to date. Others have different issues with it.

You now say that experience is your credible support for your claims about ground glass screens. I would say get your eyes tested because my experience is different. This is just anecdotal from both of us. I'm talking about either scientific evidence, or at least credible specification information from the manufacturers.

As for my simple calculation. If you bothered to read the link that I gave you, like I read the one that you gave me, you will see some experimentation that showed the equivalent of 18Mp resolution on a GG screen exactly twice the size of A900 screen. From this I deduced a mimimum of 9Mp on A900 and this is not allowing for improvements due to spherical acute matte design. Also GG screens resolve detail differently according to how finely they are ground. Course ground provides more contrast but less resolution and fine ground is the opposite.

Therefore, there are quite a few variables to take into account and unless someone has the hard data we can't be certain, however, if you read the article that I suggested, I'm sure that you'll agree that 9Mp + is probably a conservative estimate, taking into consideration Minolta and then Sony's lead in development in modern focussing screens. Hence, 4 X 2.4 = 9.6Mp.

As for DOF issues, I was not unaware of the points brought out in your linked article. In fact, it's one of the reasons that Sony provided different screens for the A900. Even with the most appropriate screen, however, you will still see DOF on screen with 50mm set at f1.4, looking like about f2.8, but this relationship is not linear. With lens at f2.8, it looks as it should and will continue to do so at higher apertures.

Again, I pointed to use of intelligent preview on A900 as a solution at large apertures.

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

Manfred Bachmann wrote:

Evf is one of the reason why no real pro will ever buy a sony a99! all the others, like canon, nikon, leica, hasselblad, pentax and many more stay with mirror, because pros dosent want eyf´s. if evf´s are so good, why not put it on the wall instead of a window, lol! Compare an A900 with an A77, the A77 evf is just ridiculous!

So exactly when did all the pros elect you as their spokesman? And where do you get your facts from, like pros don't want EVFs? You have never owned an EVF camera and probably never used one so how would you know which one is better?
--
My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

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

BMWX5 wrote:

You are very new to this forum. Try reading the postings when A55 came out and you'll see so many OVF defenders attacking the EVF technology.

I'll take your word for it, but it's one thing to attack the technology, whichever side of the fence you're on, but quite another to aggressively attack people on a personal level, telling them to "gt*o" of the Sony forum.

These forums serve a useful purpose and yes, sometimes people get passionate about their views, but it shouldn't get personal and threatening.

My views will be well understood by now, so I accept that Sony has killed OVF in Sonyland. Fine, I'll keep buying secondhand A900s as long as I need to, or until the EVF offers at least 10Mp resolution (this figure is a reduction on my previous requirement based on new knowledge gained on this forum, so I can be flexible), but just because I don't fully embrace EVF, even though I acknowledge it's good points, why should I accept being bullied or threatened by other posters comments. I'm thick skinned, so I won't. I'll just argue back.

me1948 New Member • Posts: 3
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!

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!

It wouldn't matter if the ground glass of the A900 could resolve more pixels than the sensor in the camera. The viewfinder is so small that there is no way for the human eye to differentiate one pixel from the adjacent one without magnification.

Read what TrojMacReady wrote again, you'll find he is correct. Even if you bolt on a 2x angle finder, you still can't differentiate adjacent pixels in an OVF

Princess Leia Veteran Member • Posts: 6,956
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Hello welcome Nikon troller, it is an insult to read your post because if you read throughout this forum, you will discover a lot of pro left Canon and Nikon because of the EVF or SLT technology.

Look around and we will wait patiently for your apology!

In addition, with the kind of photography you do, you will love EVF

Manfred Bachmann wrote:

Evf is one of the reason why no real pro will ever buy a sony a99! all the others, like canon, nikon, leica, hasselblad, pentax and many more stay with mirror, because pros dosent want eyf´s. if evf´s are so good, why not put it on the wall instead of a window, lol! Compare an A900 with an A77, the A77 evf is just ridiculous!
manfred

-- hide signature --

Pbase supporter, NPS Austria
http://www.studio96.at

tomhongkong Veteran Member • Posts: 3,437
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

Where are the lies used to justify OVF over EVF?

Thanks

tom

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

tomhongkong wrote:

Where are the lies used to justify OVF over EVF?

That the EVF is worthless for action photography since you can't pan with it because of the slide show effect is one of them.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

EvilOne
EvilOne Forum Pro • Posts: 14,274
Re: OVF vs EVF put to rest

this should tie a ribbon around this thread
--
Bill aka EO

 EvilOne's gear list:EvilOne's gear list
Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi Nikon Coolpix 990 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A77 +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads