A tiny and personal test of some EVF

One of my main reasons for staying with Pentax is the OVF. In particular now when Pentax is the only one having OVF.

Some years ago I made a small and unscientific review of the best system camera's EVF. I visited a photo fair in Stockholm and looked at all cameras I could get my hands on. And .... the verdict then was .... cr@p. All EVF had lags and looked horrible. Yeah, could be used to frame the image, but not much more. None of those cameras I found interesting.

So, according to myth and urban legend, they are much better now, nearly as the real thing (OVF). So, today I had the possibility to redo my old review at "Fotomässan" in Stockholm. I looked at some length at the following cameras

• Sony A7R V
• Nikon Z7 II
• Nikon Z6 II
• Canon R5
• Canon R6
• Panasonic S? (I am not sure which one it was - it was FF)
• OM-1

Here comes my verdict. Note, that it is not all that easy. The behavior was not entirely predictable. Sometimes it was better and sometimes worse.

In my opinion only Nikon, Canon and Panasonic had EVF that were good enough for me. Sony and OM was not to me liking, although in one session I thought maybe Sony was OK. Other than that this is my ordering

1. Panasonic. I saw no problems. I checked several settings of the EVF and all were rock stable. It handled bright lights kind of good, with a strange smooth halo.
2. Nikon. The Z7 was totally without problems, like the Panasonic. Another handling of bright lights though, where they had a sharp halo destroying resolution of bright text. The Z6 was very bad, verry erratic image when turning around. And when I told that to the guy behind the counter he looked at it and confirmed it. He then did a general reset of the camera. And then it was OK, but not as good as Z7. Strange.
3. The Canon R6 was kind of good. I think it would have been OK for me to use. But, not the R5, but I did not make any investigations whether the guys could fix it. I do not remember how Canon handled bright lights.

So, how did this go? Quite good actually. Better than I thought. A bit annoying is the inconsistency. You think it is OK, and then you do not. Is that in my head - or in the camera? Sometimes it is absolutely in the camera, but probably not always.

I would still say that OVF rocks! But the Panasonic and the Z7 II are mighty good.

Interesting review, thanks for sharing this experience.

My understanding is the Z6ii and Z7ii use the same viewfinder, and the following is from the DPR review of the Z6ii.  So, I'm not sure what was going on with the Z6 you tested.

"The viewfinder in the Z6 II is the same 3.68M-dot OLED as in the original model (and the Z7/II). Nikon points out that the optics and coatings are of its own design and says it's decreased both the refresh lag and the blackout time between shots."

I keep hoping one of my Sony shooting friends would upgrade to an A1 because I'd really like to look thru that viewfinder, a 9.44M-dot OLED at 0.9 magnification.

I'm actually ok with the low end 2.36M OLED finder in the Zfc, and yes, the Z6ii I've used is better, but even now a 3.68M finder is something of a mid-quality unit, so the EVFs are definitely getting better.

Roland Karlsson wrote:

One of my main reasons for staying with Pentax is the OVF. In particular now when Pentax is the only one having OVF.

Some years ago I made a small and unscientific review of the best system camera's EVF. I visited a photo fair in Stockholm and looked at all cameras I could get my hands on. And .... the verdict then was .... cr@p. All EVF had lags and looked horrible. Yeah, could be used to frame the image, but not much more. None of those cameras I found interesting.

So, according to myth and urban legend, they are much better now, nearly as the real thing (OVF). So, today I had the possibility to redo my old review at "Fotomässan" in Stockholm. I looked at some length at the following cameras

• Sony A7R V
• Nikon Z7 II
• Nikon Z6 II
• Canon R5
• Canon R6
• Panasonic S? (I am not sure which one it was - it was FF)
• OM-1

Here comes my verdict. Note, that it is not all that easy. The behavior was not entirely predictable. Sometimes it was better and sometimes worse.

In my opinion only Nikon, Canon and Panasonic had EVF that were good enough for me. Sony and OM was not to me liking, although in one session I thought maybe Sony was OK. Other than that this is my ordering

1. Panasonic. I saw no problems. I checked several settings of the EVF and all were rock stable. It handled bright lights kind of good, with a strange smooth halo.
2. Nikon. The Z7 was totally without problems, like the Panasonic. Another handling of bright lights though, where they had a sharp halo destroying resolution of bright text. The Z6 was very bad, verry erratic image when turning around. And when I told that to the guy behind the counter he looked at it and confirmed it. He then did a general reset of the camera. And then it was OK, but not as good as Z7. Strange.
3. The Canon R6 was kind of good. I think it would have been OK for me to use. But, not the R5, but I did not make any investigations whether the guys could fix it. I do not remember how Canon handled bright lights.

So, how did this go? Quite good actually. Better than I thought. A bit annoying is the inconsistency. You think it is OK, and then you do not. Is that in my head - or in the camera? Sometimes it is absolutely in the camera, but probably not always.

I would still say that OVF rocks! But the Panasonic and the Z7 II are mighty good.

Kinda reminds me of my slightly related experience on Sunday morning.

My son was playing cricket for his club team and it was my turn as a parent to do the scoring. At the ground that they were playing, the scorers sit a fair distance from edge of the field, so whenever a catch was taken we have to identify which player took the catch (to enter it into the score book). When the other team was in the field and took a catch the other team's scorer tried to use his smart phone camera to zoom in to the group of celebrating boys to work out which fielder took the catch... he struggled... But I have scored at that ground (our home ground) before, so I was prepared. After the other scorer gave up on the smart phones' EVF in exaspiration! I handed him my 8x42 hunting binoculars with which he (and I in our fielding innings) could instantly find the relevant player and work out who did what. You can always identify the fielder who caught the catch from all the high fives!

The natural superiority of optical over electronic view

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Must have been a nice opportunity to play with all these cameras!

• Panasonic S? (I am not sure which one it was - it was FF)

[...]

1. Panasonic. I saw no problems. I checked several settings of the EVF and all were rock stable. It handled bright lights kind of good, with a strange smooth halo.

I assume this was either the S1 or S1R, as the S5 has a significantly lower-specced EVF.

1. Nikon. The Z7 was totally without problems, like the Panasonic. Another handling of bright lights though, where they had a sharp halo destroying resolution of bright text. The Z6 was very bad, verry erratic image when turning around. And when I told that to the guy behind the counter he looked at it and confirmed it. He then did a general reset of the camera. And then it was OK, but not as good as Z7. Strange.

Strange indeed as these have the same EVF.

So, how did this go? Quite good actually. Better than I thought. A bit annoying is the inconsistency. You think it is OK, and then you do not. Is that in my head - or in the camera? Sometimes it is absolutely in the camera, but probably not always.

As you have noticed, camera-settings play a big role, just like e.g. diopter-settings matters a lot on the OVF. So it's not just specs etc, but also setting up things properly to your liking. But I can imagine that in a store, you don't have much time for this.

I would still say that OVF rocks! But the Panasonic and the Z7 II are mighty good.

EVFs have come a long way. And it is good to realize the S1 nearly 4-years old already. In my opinion the 1st really good EVF is that from 2015's Leica SL.

Personally, for normal focal lengths, my most favored viewfinder is still the combined viewfinder/rangefinder. But for specific applications I prefer a TTL-view. E.g. for UWA, I like to be able to magnify the view to check precise framing.

RBIV wrote:

Interesting review, thanks for sharing this experience.

My understanding is the Z6ii and Z7ii use the same viewfinder, and the following is from the DPR review of the Z6ii. So, I'm not sure what was going on with the Z6 you tested.

Yes, it is strange. But - they had different lenses. The Z7 II had the 20/1.8 and the Z6 II had a zoom lens. My experience is that EVF suffers for long focal lengths, where the image is moving fast.

One thing that was VERY clear though was that the finder in Z6 II was totaly off before he resetted the camera.

"The viewfinder in the Z6 II is the same 3.68M-dot OLED as in the original model (and the Z7/II). Nikon points out that the optics and coatings are of its own design and says it's decreased both the refresh lag and the blackout time between shots."

I keep hoping one of my Sony shooting friends would upgrade to an A1 because I'd really like to look thru that viewfinder, a 9.44M-dot OLED at 0.9 magnification.

I'm actually ok with the low end 2.36M OLED finder in the Zfc, and yes, the Z6ii I've used is better, but even now a 3.68M finder is something of a mid-quality unit, so the EVFs are definitely getting better.

So, after this tests and the replies, this is my conclusions

• Modern OVF rocks. It just works. No need for tedious comparisons and strange settings and using the best lens etc. What there is you see in full real time!
• It is not easy to compare different EVF. If they work well or not is very elusive. Some are obviously worse. But, among the top tier, it is annoyingly difficult to understand which one is the best.
• One exception: Panasonic. I found no problems, except maybe the strange halo for bright lights. It was actually very nice.
• Nikon Z7 II was nearly as good as Panasonic. But, of course not, as good as an OVF. Had some problems with the Z6 II, which has exactly the same EVF. But, it had a slower and longer lens.
• Canon was a mixed bag. R6 kind of good and R5 kind of bad.
• Sony and OM, no, not really something I did fancy.

My experience of OVFs in the digital age goes up to and includes the Pentax K-5.

After that, and to complement the Pentax:

Fuji X30 (fixed lens): EVF not the biggest but perfectly OK. Never needed to focus manually though.

M4/3:

Panasonic GX7 and other Panasonics with that form factor: not great - field sequential colour (or whatever it's called), not over-large magnification, and insufficient eye-relief.

Panasonic GX8: Excellent - EVF very large and I mean big, clear and easy to use with glasses.

Olympus OM5 iii: Not that large but OK, with very good eye relief.

FF:

I haven't tried the Sony A7-3 - Sonyphiles say the EVF is fine: the DPR review said it was a bit on the small side. I would like to try it. That camera seems to be the most compact FF option.

I used to be suspicious of EVFs: some are still better than others but as a product category I wouldn't shy away from one on principle.  And if you're using old Pentax lenses, having focus peaking and the real-time histogram through the viewfinder is fantastic.

timo wrote:

Fuji X30 (fixed lens): EVF not the biggest but perfectly OK. Never needed to focus manually though.

My experience with manual focus on Fuji has been pretty good, except in very low light (think inside cinema) where noise would be an issue; however, with an SLR, manual focus through OVF would have been even more challenging, as the OVF lacks the option to magnify. In those circumstances, my tool of choise is the rangefinder.

FF:

I haven't tried the Sony A7-3 - Sonyphiles say the EVF is fine: the DPR review said it was a bit on the small side. I would like to try it. That camera seems to be the most compact FF option.

There are quite some more relatively compact options, with the Sigma FP / FPL being the smallest.

In the "mainstream"-cameras, e.g. the Nikon Z5 is very similar in size to the A7-3, and Leica's M-range is smaller, as is the Canon RP. And of course Sony's own A7C.

Obviously, every camera has its own compromises, so it often comes down to personal preference.

I had the Panasonic S1R for a month.  Sent it back. Two yeas later, tried the A7R4 for a month.  It also went back.  Both cameras are very nice, with different problems (like all cameras).  Would consider an S1R Mark 2.

My first camera was Sony Rx10 with EVF.  of course it was all I knew, so it seems great.  However, I've yet to use an EVF that did not slow down markedly when darkness arrives.  That makes for a shaky and disconnected viewfinder experience.  In daylight, it is not the same as OVF, but they work well enough now.

I understand that the Z9 uses a clever trick to make the view more natural.  Resolution isn't everything - although it does seem to me that the conversation is different at 9.44 million pixels than 3.7m.

I have not used view cameras, but I understand they put our puny OVF to shame!

Sjak wrote:

timo wrote:

...

FF:

I haven't tried the Sony A7-3 - Sonyphiles say the EVF is fine: the DPR review said it was a bit on the small side. I would like to try it. That camera seems to be the most compact FF option.

There are quite some more relatively compact options, with the Sigma FP / FPL being the smallest.

In the "mainstream"-cameras, e.g. the Nikon Z5 is very similar in size to the A7-3, and Leica's M-range is smaller, as is the Canon RP. And of course Sony's own A7C.

...

Oops - of course I meant the A7C, not the A7-3. You are right. Sorry - brain failure.

Sjak wrote:

timo wrote:

Fuji X30 (fixed lens): EVF not the biggest but perfectly OK. Never needed to focus manually though.

My experience with manual focus on Fuji has been pretty good, except in very low light (think inside cinema) where noise would be an issue; however, with an SLR, manual focus through OVF would have been even more challenging, as the OVF lacks the option to magnify. In those circumstances, my tool of choise is the rangefinder.

Agree.  Leicas in the dark.  Still healthy after all these years. 

You have to try Nikon Z9 EVF. I'm very pleased with it. The only inconvenience for beginners might be a moment of darkness in the very beginning. Personally I'm trying to develop a habit to half press a shutter button while withdrawing the camera to turn EVF on immediately for viewing through.

My big disappointment with EVFs is always dynamic range in bright scenes. Even the latest Nikon showed this problem. Aimed at the camera shop door, it can't simultaneously show me what's outside in sunlight and what's hiding in the shadows inside. Now that's an extreme example that might not make a good photo, but I know I'll face the same contrasts working in my locale during a sunny day. The camera's sensor and processing can handle all those stops,14 by some measure, but the EVF can't, so it would leave me shooting blind. I don't think this will get better soon, because it would require brighter illumination in the EVF than most people need most of the time.

Methinks the popularity of EVF cameras coincides with large increases in sensor sensitivity, which have made night photography much easier. Witness the wedding I attended last month, shot by a pro with mirrorless Canon and no flash, which was indoors in a dimly-lit building. You'd want an EVF there; I used my GX8 to grab some casual portraits. But on a bright day in the mountains, that very good EVF robs me of true color and detail, leaving only the midtones visible

Call me old-fashioned or just old, but I don't get off taking a picture of a picture.

Only few people prefer EVF over OVF for what you see in the finder, maybe in dark situations there is an advantage. What makes MILC superior over DSLR's is the absence of the mirror and use the sensor itself for AF and exposure. The break through of MILC came when EVF became acceptable, not because it would be superior. Spin offs of removing the mirror are smaller cameras and less complicated optical formulas in the (super) wide angle lenses. So, for those who prefer a bright OVF over a second best AF / exposure and a compact system a DSLR is the way to go. Even a rangefinder camera might be an option. The mainstream will choose MILC, for sure those who step new in serious photography.

I doubt the strategy Pentax choose last year was a wise one. It was more a defensive one to get the best of their R&D capacity but on the long term you can not survive in an evaporating market is my opinion...

Lessiter wrote:

The thing that I find most offputting with evf's is the whitebalance. Second thing is the lack of subtlety in the colour and contrast. It just looks ugly compared to what you see with your eyes.

EVF is about as ugly as the data which are captured by the digital sensor resp. digital camera and what is created from this data - the image - when compared to real nature.

henricoo wrote:

Only few people prefer EVF over OVF for what you see in the finder,

This is a strange and incorrect assumption, I think most people.
And I'm pretty sure every sports photographer is happy that the rattling and vibrating mirror is gone forever from the new pro cameras.
Photography is digital now, and you no longer need a mirror to see through the lens. And with my Lumix camera, I can practically look in the dark ...

maybe in dark situations there is an advantage. What makes MILC superior over DSLR's is the absence of the mirror and use the sensor itself for AF and exposure. The break through of MILC came when EVF became acceptable, not because it would be superior. Spin offs of removing the mirror are smaller cameras and less complicated optical formulas in the (super) wide angle lenses. So, for those who prefer a bright OVF over a second best AF / exposure and a compact system a DSLR is the way to go. Even a rangefinder camera might be an option. The mainstream will choose MILC, for sure those who step new in serious photography.

I doubt the strategy Pentax choose last year was a wise one. It was more a defensive one to get the best of their R&D capacity but on the long term you can not survive in an evaporating market is my opinion...

Jozef.