Demonstration of mirrorless over OVF...

[Gerry Winterbourne]

The 12mm manual lens at f/22...

The camera can still show the scene easily...



Its real world shooting experiences like this using a modern mirrorless camera that makes going back to using a DSLR and OVF seem like a step backwards.

This is a DSLR with a ND 10 :



I forgot the point of the post now...

Yes in live view mode which is using it like a mirrorless anyhow.

You are also forced to only use the rear LCD screen. With a mirrorless camera I also have the option of using the EVF which makes seeing things easier in direct sunlight etc.

But that's not what your thread is about. You went to a lot of trouble to show that there is no difference between mirrorless and DSLR when using LV.


--
---
Gerry
___________________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com

[email protected]

 

[darg]

I think you should ask mods to rename the thread to “When you need to use NDs and prefer using a VF but also cannot or will not use a LCD shade”.

If they won’t oblige just make a new thread, this subject needs to be discussed and you seem to be qualified to do so.

Why would I want to use a DSLR in live view mode and put something like this on it when a mirrorless camera is already optimized for that kind of usage.

Exactly, and I'm still searching for an OVF with a magnification button. OVF were fine when there was no alternative but the advantage of an EVF can't be emulated optically. It's just that some people have an issue with change and hold on to whatever it is....

 

[Lee Jay]

I think you should ask mods to rename the thread to “When you need to use NDs and prefer using a VF but also cannot or will not use a LCD shade”.

If they won’t oblige just make a new thread, this subject needs to be discussed and you seem to be qualified to do so.

Why would I want to use a DSLR in live view mode and put something like this on it when a mirrorless camera is already optimized for that kind of usage.

Exactly, and I'm still searching for an OVF with a magnification button.

I have two of them actually - one through the OVF (I have a viewfinder magnifier) and one using the LiveView system. You can also get a split-prism focusing screen if you'd like a third option.

 

[Wheatfield7]

Sorry, but there is nothing there that a mirrored camera can't do, either...

Zoomed in to 5x when manually focusing?

Focus peaking when manually focusing?

I believe my Pentax K1 can do both of those.

 

[Wheatfield7]

Don't tell me you were using the EVF for the astro image? Is the LV that bad?

What? It's a mirrorless camera. Whether I choose to view on the LCD or through the EVF is immaterial.

Actually, it isn't, when you're trying to show the superiority of the mirrorless over the mirrored:

Use a mirror and OVF with a lens at f/22 and with a ND filter on the front of it and try to focus.

Like this guy demonstrates ... you won't see a thing.

Are you deliberately dense or just socially retarded? This was dealt with earlier in the thread.

A modern DSLR offers the best of both worlds. Most of the time, an OVF works better than an EVF, and for those rare occasions when an electronic view may work better, the DSLR has LiveView.

This gives the DSLR user an option that the EVF user simply doesn’t have, as the EVF is always in LiveView no matter if the user is looking at the rear screen or the viewfinder.

And if you used EVF, I can't resist asking why? For that kind of shooting it appears to me that LV is superior to xVF, and I'd be curious to know why you used the EVF.

It's a mirrorless camera. If I'm pointing the camera up at the night sky at a steep angle, then I can use the tilting LCD to make viewing easier as I won't have to kink my neck up at an awkward angle to see through the EVF.

Or if it's a bright sunny day, viewing through the EVF can make things easier to see. With a mirrorless camera it isn't called live view mode. The sensor is always creating the view that you will get to see either way.

My experience has been that EVFs are difficult in bright sunny conditions, and LiveView is practically useless.

I question exactly what you think you are gaining by trolling this forum with one dimensioned stupidity?

I get that you have discovered a new religion and feel the need, like all the brainwashed sycophantic missionaries that have preceded you over the centuries, to ram your belief system down other people’s throats.

I get that you feel that yours is the one true way. What you don’t get is this is not some sort of Holy Crusade, it’s just a lump of plastic and wire, metal and glass. It’s not Rosary Beads or a cross, it’s just a machine. It cares not for your pontificating, it has no ego to satisfy. It just does what it’s told to do within it’s limitations.

Getting to limitations, consider the limitation of having one viewing method rather than two. The OVF camera has LiveView, the mirrorless camera does not have an OVF.

Choices are good, but you seem to be advocating for restriction.

This is not logical.

 

[pwilly]

As we have seen from Nikon and Canon this last few weeks, lens designers can take advantage of the shorter flange distances from getting rid of the mirror altogether and create faster lenses that should be sharper corner to corner.

(My highlight)

That's actually just as much (if not more) due to the wide throat of the Z and R mounts, and not something that is an inherent attribute of a system just because it's mirrorless.

Sony will have trouble following that, even though they have been ML for years.

Are you aware that there are two f0.95 full-frame lenses currently available for e-mount?

Yes, I am.

Let's compare them with the new Nikkor f/0.95 when it becomes available. There is a good chance that, while they are equally fast, the Nikkor will have them beat in the corner to corner sharpness category

Are you prepared to make a little bet? We will come back to this post when the reviews and tests are out... The looser will publicly admit on DPR, in the Open Forum, referring to this post, that he was wrong.

Here is a review of the two available 50 f/0.95 lenses: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-nocturnus-ii-lens-speed-bokeh-for-your-sony/

Note that one comes in at £800 while the other is £3,000; the Nikon is expected to be £6,000.

If anyone reviews the lens and puts any image quality down to width of mount rather than being twice to 3.5 the price and several times the size/weight, I will happily admit that I'm wrong, although I don't think it would make me want to abandon e-mount..

Other brands, with more APS-C native mounts and with no FF, will be better off.

E.g., I can imagine some pulling of hair deep in the bowels of Sony - they have just been leapfrogged, and I doubt their customers will tolerate yet another mount from Sony - due to the decision of using an APS-C mount for FF...

E-mount works for full-frame, it can even support IBIS and fast lenses; why would they need to produce a new mount?

Time will tell. See above regarding the bet...

Regards, Mike

If you do a little geometry like BobN did here , you see that it is a combination of flange distance and throat diameter.

 

[Emperor of all Maladies]

Good example. Despite attempts by some to obfuscate it, the message is clear: the OVF simply cannot compete.

But I give an "A for effort" to those who are valiantly attempting to drag the OVF into contention by making a big, bulky camera even bigger and bulkier with all kinds of silly accessories like hoods and loupes.

 

[Bob Janes]

As we have seen from Nikon and Canon this last few weeks, lens designers can take advantage of the shorter flange distances from getting rid of the mirror altogether and create faster lenses that should be sharper corner to corner.

(My highlight)

That's actually just as much (if not more) due to the wide throat of the Z and R mounts, and not something that is an inherent attribute of a system just because it's mirrorless.

Sony will have trouble following that, even though they have been ML for years.

Are you aware that there are two f0.95 full-frame lenses currently available for e-mount?

Yes, I am.

Let's compare them with the new Nikkor f/0.95 when it becomes available. There is a good chance that, while they are equally fast, the Nikkor will have them beat in the corner to corner sharpness category

Are you prepared to make a little bet? We will come back to this post when the reviews and tests are out... The looser will publicly admit on DPR, in the Open Forum, referring to this post, that he was wrong.

Here is a review of the two available 50 f/0.95 lenses: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-nocturnus-ii-lens-speed-bokeh-for-your-sony/

Note that one comes in at £800 while the other is £3,000; the Nikon is expected to be £6,000.

If anyone reviews the lens and puts any image quality down to width of mount rather than being twice to 3.5 the price and several times the size/weight, I will happily admit that I'm wrong, although I don't think it would make me want to abandon e-mount..

Other brands, with more APS-C native mounts and with no FF, will be better off.

E.g., I can imagine some pulling of hair deep in the bowels of Sony - they have just been leapfrogged, and I doubt their customers will tolerate yet another mount from Sony - due to the decision of using an APS-C mount for FF...

E-mount works for full-frame, it can even support IBIS and fast lenses; why would they need to produce a new mount?

Time will tell. See above regarding the bet...

Regards, Mike

If you do a little geometry like BobN did here , you see that it is a combination of flange distance and throat diameter.

Interesting to read that a Leica mount f/0.95 lens won't work on digital... Steve Huff will doubtless be disappointed, as it makes his review here seem a little silly... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/09/the-leica-50-noctilux-f-0-95-lens-review/ same probably is true for these other e-mount f/0.95 lenses he reviewed... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-nocturnus-ii-lens-speed-bokeh-for-your-sony/ and http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/08/04/the-mitakon-50-0-95-lens-review-on-the-sony-a7s/

 

[mamallama]

It's just a matter of time before EVFs will progress to be as good or better than OVFs ...

Oh really. How do beat (or even match) zero lag, zero power usage, infinite DR and infinite color gamut?

Be patient. It doesn't have to be zero and infinite to be as good as for all practical purposes. They are for humans who don't require perfection to be as good as.

Then then won't be "as good or better" they'll be worse but "good enough" for some uses.

That's a matter of definition. Good as or better for all practical purposes, for sure. Getting rid of that mirror contraption (which does not consume zero power to flip despite what you imply) and the space/weight savings may be worth not having exactly zero power and lag.

The viewfinder doesn't consume power. The mirror mechanism does, but it's an extremely tiny amount, only for a tiny fraction of a second, and only when you actually release the shutter. An EVF consumes a large amount of power continuously while it's in use because it has to run the sensor, the entire processing pipeline and the microdisplay.

I was referring to your use of absolutes like zero. Now you know OVFs do involve some power use.

 

[mdmarqphoto]

It's just a matter of time before EVFs will progress to be as good or better than OVFs ...

Oh really. How do beat (or even match) zero lag, zero power usage, infinite DR and infinite color gamut?

Be patient. It doesn't have to be zero and infinite to be as good as for all practical purposes. They are for humans who don't require perfection to be as good as.

Then then won't be "as good or better" they'll be worse but "good enough" for some uses.

That's a matter of definition. Good as or better for all practical purposes, for sure. Getting rid of that mirror contraption (which does not consume zero power to flip despite what you imply) and the space/weight savings may be worth not having exactly zero power and lag.

The viewfinder doesn't consume power. The mirror mechanism does, but it's an extremely tiny amount, only for a tiny fraction of a second, and only when you actually release the shutter. An EVF consumes a large amount of power continuously while it's in use because it has to run the sensor, the entire processing pipeline and the microdisplay.

I was referring to your use of absolutes like zero. Now you know OVFs do involve some power use.

No, OVFs do not use any power by themselves. I can look through my OVF all day long without any power usage. Taking a picture or viewing exposure info/settings in them does.

 

[Lee Jay]

It's just a matter of time before EVFs will progress to be as good or better than OVFs ...

Oh really. How do beat (or even match) zero lag, zero power usage, infinite DR and infinite color gamut?

Be patient. It doesn't have to be zero and infinite to be as good as for all practical purposes. They are for humans who don't require perfection to be as good as.

Then then won't be "as good or better" they'll be worse but "good enough" for some uses.

That's a matter of definition. Good as or better for all practical purposes, for sure. Getting rid of that mirror contraption (which does not consume zero power to flip despite what you imply) and the space/weight savings may be worth not having exactly zero power and lag.

The viewfinder doesn't consume power. The mirror mechanism does, but it's an extremely tiny amount, only for a tiny fraction of a second, and only when you actually release the shutter. An EVF consumes a large amount of power continuously while it's in use because it has to run the sensor, the entire processing pipeline and the microdisplay.

I was referring to your use of absolutes like zero. Now you know OVFs do involve some power use.

No, they don't. I can use the OVF with the battery removed.

 

[pwilly]

As we have seen from Nikon and Canon this last few weeks, lens designers can take advantage of the shorter flange distances from getting rid of the mirror altogether and create faster lenses that should be sharper corner to corner.

(My highlight)

That's actually just as much (if not more) due to the wide throat of the Z and R mounts, and not something that is an inherent attribute of a system just because it's mirrorless.

Sony will have trouble following that, even though they have been ML for years.

Are you aware that there are two f0.95 full-frame lenses currently available for e-mount?

Yes, I am.

Let's compare them with the new Nikkor f/0.95 when it becomes available. There is a good chance that, while they are equally fast, the Nikkor will have them beat in the corner to corner sharpness category

Are you prepared to make a little bet? We will come back to this post when the reviews and tests are out... The looser will publicly admit on DPR, in the Open Forum, referring to this post, that he was wrong.

Here is a review of the two available 50 f/0.95 lenses: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-nocturnus-ii-lens-speed-bokeh-for-your-sony/

Note that one comes in at £800 while the other is £3,000; the Nikon is expected to be £6,000.

If anyone reviews the lens and puts any image quality down to width of mount rather than being twice to 3.5 the price and several times the size/weight, I will happily admit that I'm wrong, although I don't think it would make me want to abandon e-mount..

Other brands, with more APS-C native mounts and with no FF, will be better off.

E.g., I can imagine some pulling of hair deep in the bowels of Sony - they have just been leapfrogged, and I doubt their customers will tolerate yet another mount from Sony - due to the decision of using an APS-C mount for FF...

E-mount works for full-frame, it can even support IBIS and fast lenses; why would they need to produce a new mount?

Time will tell. See above regarding the bet...

Regards, Mike

If you do a little geometry like BobN did here , you see that it is a combination of flange distance and throat diameter.

Interesting to read that a Leica mount f/0.95 lens won't work on digital... Steve Huff will doubtless be disappointed, as it makes his review here seem a little silly... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2009/12/09/the-leica-50-noctilux-f-0-95-lens-review/ same probably is true for these other e-mount f/0.95 lenses he reviewed... http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2017/...-nocturnus-ii-lens-speed-bokeh-for-your-sony/ and http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/08/04/the-mitakon-50-0-95-lens-review-on-the-sony-a7s/

II didn't say it doesn't work, look at the results. Vignetting is one issue, you will find and maybe you like. How about edge to edge sharpness?

Short flange and wide throat also can help in design to reduce astigmatism and corner sharpness..

 

[MarshallG]

You don’t need any kind of viewfinder, be it O or E, to focus an APS-C camera with a 12mm lens at f/22.

The hyperfocal distance is somewhere around 50cm, and something like 30cm to infinity will be in focus.

You are presumably using f/22 for really deep DoF, and not just to slow down, so why not use the hyperfocal distance, instead of running the risk of focusing further away than 50cm and thus ruining your foreground DoF?

And with ND10 and f/22 you really would be very unlikely to use the viewfinder anyway, as long as your camera has liveview.

Those shots were only for demonstration purposes that at f/22 and with a ND filter on, that I could still easily manually focus.

Here's a shot in practice...


56mm at f/16, 5 sec.

56mm with a 10 stop ND filter. I was quite close to those rocks and changing my camera position for a different composition required rechecking focus again. I was very surprised I could still easily magnify the view and readjust focus with the filter still on.

Never argue with somebody who can shoot like that!

If you say it works for you and those are the results you get — You’re right! It’s a beautiful result.

 

[kiwi2]

If I'm going to be using a ND filter, I'll be on a tripod and am going to use the LCD anyway - regardless whether it's mirrorless or a DSLR.

So if like me as a DSLR user, you find yourself using live view more and more - then why not move to a camera that is specific designed around not having a mirror.

What? I only gave a specific situation where I would use the LCD. The only time I really use it at length is shooting a static scene on a tripod. When not tripod-bound, I'm looking through the OVF. I'm still using the OVF when tripod mounted with a long lens tracking birds or other moving objects. So no, I'm not using the LCD more and more - only for specific situations.

And in the same token my mirrorless cameras are also capable of tracking and auto focusing on moving objects...











































It's not like mirrorless excludes that type of photography and is only the realm of DSLRs.

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[kiwi2]

alternatively you could take the filter out of the holder?

Fair enough question. Even if you were saying it sarcastically there's actually a very good reason.

As I use ND filters to create long exposures to smooth water, that quite often means I am using them at the beach...









With this shot I was using a round screw on ND filter. Inevitably after shooting at the beach for a while things get covered in sand. Tripod legs, camera bag, your hands and camera. I was not keen to unscrew the filter and risk getting any sand on the thread. Getting grit on a filter thread can result in a stuck filter. It was very nice to be able to leave it on all the time. It would have also been keeping any sea spray off the front lens element.

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[Mark B.]

If I'm going to be using a ND filter, I'll be on a tripod and am going to use the LCD anyway - regardless whether it's mirrorless or a DSLR.

So if like me as a DSLR user, you find yourself using live view more and more - then why not move to a camera that is specific designed around not having a mirror.

What? I only gave a specific situation where I would use the LCD. The only time I really use it at length is shooting a static scene on a tripod. When not tripod-bound, I'm looking through the OVF. I'm still using the OVF when tripod mounted with a long lens tracking birds or other moving objects. So no, I'm not using the LCD more and more - only for specific situations.

And in the same token my mirrorless cameras are also capable of tracking and auto focusing on moving objects...

And...??? Really not sure what your ultimate point is. You suggested I was somehow using the LCD "more and more" when I gave an example of how I used it in one instance, as some sort of proof that it's reason enough I should move to mirrorless when that's not the case at all.

Now you're showing how you use a mirrorless to shoot action, which wasn't even a point in the discussion. Not sure where this is going.

 

[kiwi2]

Good example. Despite attempts by some to obfuscate it, the message is clear: the OVF simply cannot compete.

But I give an "A for effort" to those who are valiantly attempting to drag the OVF into contention by making a big, bulky camera even bigger and bulkier with all kinds of silly accessories like hoods and loupes.

And their counterargument seems to be OVF is better because we use live view mode and not use the OVF. ;-)

 

[kiwi2]

You don’t need any kind of viewfinder, be it O or E, to focus an APS-C camera with a 12mm lens at f/22.

The hyperfocal distance is somewhere around 50cm, and something like 30cm to infinity will be in focus.

You are presumably using f/22 for really deep DoF, and not just to slow down, so why not use the hyperfocal distance, instead of running the risk of focusing further away than 50cm and thus ruining your foreground DoF?

And with ND10 and f/22 you really would be very unlikely to use the viewfinder anyway, as long as your camera has liveview.

Those shots were only for demonstration purposes that at f/22 and with a ND filter on, that I could still easily manually focus.

Here's a shot in practice...


56mm at f/16, 5 sec.

56mm with a 10 stop ND filter. I was quite close to those rocks and changing my camera position for a different composition required rechecking focus again. I was very surprised I could still easily magnify the view and readjust focus with the filter still on.

Never argue with somebody who can shoot like that!

If you say it works for you and those are the results you get — You’re right! It’s a beautiful result.

Thanks. Here's my '1 year with Fuji' album if interested...

https://flic.kr/s/aHskGHoofd

It's the fun factor that some people talk about with Fujis that makes me want to just get out and shoot more often now.

--

1 year with Fuji

Explore this photo album by Pete Oliver on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[Lee Jay]

And in the same token my mirrorless cameras are also capable of tracking and auto focusing on moving objects...

The targets you've shown are slow-moving, widely-framed and have deep DOF. Easy stuff. I could have shot those with my AE-1.

How about something going 170mph with 9 feet of DOF?

--
Lee Jay

 

[kiwi2]

And in the same token my mirrorless cameras are also capable of tracking and auto focusing on moving objects...

And...??? Really not sure what your ultimate point is. You suggested I was somehow using the LCD "more and more" when I gave an example of how I used it in one instance, as some sort of proof that it's reason enough I should move to mirrorless when that's not the case at all.

Now you're showing how you use a mirrorless to shoot action, which wasn't even a point in the discussion. Not sure where this is going.

You said...

"I'm still using the OVF when tripod mounted with a long lens tracking birds or other moving objects. So no, I'm not using the LCD more and more - only for specific situations"

It's not like mirrorless excludes shooting moving objects. They are also very capable at it. If I get the benefits of mirrorless for my landscape and astro shooting and still also have a more than capable camera for moving objects (will be trying my hand at some motorsport tomorrow) then I'm getting more benefits than I'm getting downsides by moving to mirrorless.