Sequential EVF "tearing" effect - reality or myth?

I cannot be annoyed by something I have not noticed.  But I am sure that it is real enough to bother somebody.  But perhaps it was more sourced from a review test.  I am sure that the review was correctly made.  However a reviewer's job includes pointing out possible problems found. So even the greatest machine must have some drawbacks lest they be thought sycophantic.

However it is the job of the Pompous Order of Hereditary Naysayers to fulminate continuously on every little exception brought up by a review.

More considered opinions decide on whether they can live with it or not.

If that is all that is wrong with the GX7 then there is nothing much wrong with it at all.

Similarly the GM1 "wheel" issue seems to be an item that some can easily live with and others who no longer have one (or never did) can keep on mentioning forever as the one thing that must necessarily needs this brilliant little camera an immediate consignment to the electronic dustbin.

The only solution is either for reviewers not to mention little problems and to be thought over-excited by a new product or for potential owners to make up their own minds despite the review.  Of course I sometimes disagree with a reviewers personal opinion. Such as the GM1 was an amazing achievement but by the GM5 it had become a light duties pocketable camera.  Again, I made up my own mind.

WhiteBeard wrote:

So, to summarize th results of this poll and rounding off the %:

• 50% of the "population" never saw the effect while another 30% saw it once in awhile but was not bothered by it; so at first glimpse, the tearing effect is a non-event for 80% of owners.
• About 10% were slightly bothered and another 10% were bothered enough to replace theirs cameras. The problem here, as was noted in some of the posts, is that the poll considered only present/past owners but did not include those who tried the camera before buying and decided against it because of the tearing effect. At least three posts explained just that.
• For this reason, making a totally un-scientific adjustment to the results - some would call it fudging - I suppose we are looking at about 77% that are not concerned by tearing as opposed to 23% who are bothered by it, with 15% or almost one out of six people that just can't stand it at all. This is somewhat surprising as a) I haven't heard that kind of noise about this issue in the forum and b) if it was true that 10-15% of the population was allergic to this product, it would seem strange that Panasonic not only waited so many years to come up with cameras that don't use a field-sequential EVF (GH3/4, and GX8 coming to mind) but that their latest product, the much-awaited GX85, is still touting a field-sequential EVF... True, a population of 60 is not a very good basis to get a true picture (pardon the pun) but it is still a sign that we should wait for more tests and user experience on the GX85 to find out if the FSEVF tearing issue is still relevant or not.

I see that the six votes that were about to ditch their camera (it has been around for quite a while) right after they showed their disgust had waited a long time to suddenly decide this. Perhaps we can take these votes as being not representative and being those of the "poll-buster" variety?

In this case there are likely to be no present owners of the GX7 that see this problem and are annoyed enough to rid themself of the camera.  On the other hand some may have divested themself of the camera at an earlier date because of this perceived problem.

But in truth it would seem that it is only a problem to the easily annoyed and anyone annoyed enough to divest themself of the camera on this account alone would have to only be one step short of plumb crazy and certainly one who had bought the camera with blinkers on.

Jeanadriane wrote:

ThePhilips wrote:

WhiteBeard wrote:

This is somewhat surprising as [...]

... all Leica Q owners swear by their field-sequential EVFs being the best thing since the sliced bread...

That is in human nature. If nobody points the problem out, everybody would live on happily. But once somebody points at something, lots of people would start looking at it and be overall bothered by it.

I'm not too sure about that, Philips. I discovered this poll too late to participate, but I'm one of those who sold the GX7 mainly because of the EVF. It really bothered me. And I can't even say it was because of the rainbow tearing. It just was too damn unpleasant while I was (am) used to the gorgeous LVF2s on my GX1s. I think I was more bothered by the tiny size of the EVF at 4:3 and the fact that the diopter correction stopped at +3 while the LVF2 goes up to +5, which is great for me. Had the EVF of the GX7 been bigger, I probably just could have done with the +3, after all there are other EVFs In that range that I can deal with, but not with this puny thing on the GX7 and I'm afraid it's gonna kill the GX80 for me too. The GX8 on the other hand.... WOW! Thát's an EVF!

It is good that there is a camera for everyone.

The design brief of the GX80 was obviously to make as small a M4/3 mount camera that could be made with every user convenience built it.  By necessity the evf was not going to be large.  That is why Panasonic has another model with larger overall size and a suitably large evf (GX8).

This makes the GX80 the renamed GM7 by definition - one of the compact GM body series where Panasonic chickened out on the naming sequence as they must have decided that too many potential users were seeing the GM series as lightweight-use cameras.

Those that wanted features added back into the GM series really wanted a GM size body with all the GX7 "good bits".  No amount of telling would convince them that a GM series with all the nominated extras was the GX7 and the cumulative effect of "just a little larger" with every add-back "needed".  Now the GX80 is indeed a little smaller than the GX7 and loaded up to the hilt and immediately there is a request that it be fitted up with a larger evf ...... (?)

Methinks that such a camera would strongly resemble a GX8  - go for it, but the GX7 and GX80 evf are fine by me.

BTW, what surprised me in my months with the GX7, was also that I actually preferred the weaker contrast and saturation in the LVF2. To me it felt more comfortable to the eye and by that made it easier to judge or even see the image. But again, that as well might have been the result of tiny size & diopter limitation.

-- hide signature --

http://jeanettebos.zenfolio.com

ThePhilips wrote:

Jeanadriane wrote:

It really bothered me. And I can't even say it was because of the rainbow tearing. It just was too damn unpleasant while I was (am) used to the gorgeous LVF2s on my GX1s.

The EVF of GX7 being small is a different story, and here there is no argument: it is small.

It is small but quite workable.  The GM5 evf is even smaller but also quite workable.

Therefore all cameras are some sort of compromise.  I am willing to compromise evf size for a smaller camera body form factor.  I have no problem with framing and focusing even on the GM5 evf.

If there were no camera with a larger evf then I could see some sense in this argument.  But there is no sense in wishing every camera to have a large gorgeous evf if a smaller, less gorgeous evf provided a good enough result for most.  This amounts to designing every small faunctional camera around a fixed size/capability evf unit.  If a larger evf is desired then users have to make a body size concession to get it.

I see no problem in this but I do see a problem in being forced to accept a larger camera form factor than I would necessarily want just because some set their sights on a large luscious evf as the only way to travel.  The GX8 fills the bill, let it rest at that.

But again, that as well might have been the result of tiny size & diopter limitation.

And that is a valid quantifiable complain.

The question was about the rainbow effect of the field-sequential EVFs, and you seem to fall into the group who are not bothered by it.