OVF: Solution looking for problem

[rovingtim]

And well said too.

 

[Kikl]

...You are right. I also cited sports and fast moving objects while I

almost never shoot sports. But the thing is, even where I shoot most
often (macro and close up) the OVF is by far superior any EVF.

I said two or three factors which are problematic, and these are
problematic for any kind of photography.

1. Display lag.
2. Viewability in every light.
3. Resolution.

Well, I think we all agree that these three points have to be adressed by the electronic viewfinder. Display lag is the most important aspect. I don't really get the difference between "low light" and "virtually no light". That argument does not convince me. In low light shooting, the electronic viewfinder can provide a brighter image due to gain increase - albeit a noisier image - where the optical viewfinder can't.

The viewfinder is supposed to tell you, how the picture is going to look like, that you are about to take. Since the image sensor has a limited resolution, there is no point in providing a viewfinder with a higher resolution than the image sensor. Any details beyond that will not be recorded and must not be shown. The same must be said about the rendering of colours and dynamic range. The electronic viewfinder must not provide more colours or more dynamic range than the sensor in order to do it's job perfectly. If the electronics for viewfinders catch up with sensore electronics, then there will be no grounds for complaining about its quality.

 

[Stujoe]

Also, all of you who defend the OVF cite sports or fast-moving
subjects... fine, for sport photography, you can continue with an
OVF, but I guess 99% of photographs by people are taken with more
static subjects, and m43 promises to be a wonderful format for them.

How many kids do you have any what are their ages? No sport other than car racing moves faster than mine when they were young. Didn't I read a post that said m4/3 was being market to moms?

--
Stu (N80, N50, D50, E510, TZ4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.

 

[olyflyer]

...You are right. I also cited sports and fast moving objects while I
almost never shoot sports. But the thing is, even where I shoot most
often (macro and close up) the OVF is by far superior any EVF.

I said two or three factors which are problematic, and these are
problematic for any kind of photography.

1. Display lag.
2. Viewability in every light.
3. Resolution.

Well, I think we all agree that these three points have to be
adressed by the electronic viewfinder. Display lag is the most
important aspect. I don't really get the difference between "low
light" and "virtually no light". That argument does not convince me.
In low light shooting, the electronic viewfinder can provide a
brighter image due to gain increase - albeit a noisier image - where
the optical viewfinder can't.

If I have time, I'll post a sample image tonight to show the difference between low light and virtually no light. I think people talk too much about the low light advantages of EVF, and my guess those people compare the consumer cameras with an imaginative nice EVF. If I can see in a room, even if it is a dimly lit night club, I prefer the OVF of the E-3 before any EVF.

The viewfinder is supposed to tell you, how the picture is going to
look like, that you are about to take. Since the image sensor has a
limited resolution, there is no point in providing a viewfinder with
a higher resolution than the image sensor. Any details beyond that
will not be recorded and must not be shown. The same must be said
about the rendering of colours and dynamic range. The electronic
viewfinder must not provide more colours or more dynamic range than
the sensor in order to do it's job perfectly. If the electronics for
viewfinders catch up with sensore electronics, then there will be no
grounds for complaining about its quality.

I totally disagree. IMO the VF may not be the weakest chain in the image because that results in degradation of quality or extra work on the final image. The VF must have at least the same resulution and quality as the final image, or else it is just a compromise. There are no LCD screens available today (not even the Nikon) which truly represents the final image and corresponds to the image on the sensor. Even less so is the case with EVFs. They are much worse than any image sensor (even the cr@ppiest) on the market, both in regard of DR, contrast, colour, resolution, brightness and any other parameter you can think of. There is a very long way to go before we are even in the vicinity of any OVFs in regard to those parameters. Of course, no point making EVFs better than the image sensors, even though I personally think they should be made better, but as of today, they are far behind, so there is no risk of anybody making them better for a while.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[olyflyer]

Also, all of you who defend the OVF cite sports or fast-moving
subjects... fine, for sport photography, you can continue with an
OVF, but I guess 99% of photographs by people are taken with more
static subjects, and m43 promises to be a wonderful format for them.

How many kids do you have any what are their ages? No sport other
than car racing moves faster than mine when they were young. Didn't I
read a post that said m4/3 was being market to moms?

Well, "moms" are already using P&S or compacts with EVF or LCD only, so I am really convinced that the m4/3 would suit their needs very well. If they can track their children with todays camera I am sure the m4/3 would be a dream for them, by far superior any available P&S and compacts.

PS. Nothing discriminative about my "moms" opinion. I know that even most dads use P&S or compacts with EVF or LCD only, and I also know moms who would never do that and the use dSLRs.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X 0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would want to use it.

On my Pentax it's also pretty much unusable. But it's a
six-years-old P&S. A lot of people use the Live-View zoom on the
E-system cameras for precise manual focusing.

Boris

--
D620L -> D540 -> C750UZ -> E-500 -> E-510 -> E-3

 

[Kritta]

There are a lot of interesting thoughts and insights popping up in this thread... many more than I had expected when I started it.

Re the lag issue. I think an EVF can eliminate lag with a buffer. That is: when you press the shutter, the image from a lag-amount-of-time ago is the one that is actually stored. This is already a feature in some cameras. I've even read about a camera that, when you press the shutter, stores several images from the past.

Seems there are a lot of different people with different priorities, different ways of shooting different subject matter and different approaches to composing and taking shots. I can see the benefit of OVF for some. Other will love the benefits of an EVF and/or articulated live-view screen.

Someone made the point that OVF is optical while EVF is electronic - and of course an OVF will always have higher quality. It's analogue (or analog for those of you in the U.S.) as opposed to digital. An OVF has no resolution. But at the end of the day we're all shooting in digital. So, in principle at least, we are happy with the quality of digital, although the EVF quality may still need to improve a lot to be useful.

For me, EVF and/or live view is fine, because I compose a shot with my naked eye and use the viewfinder just to frame it. That doesn't work with fast-moving things, children, insects in macro, etc... so I can see that some would really need an OVF or a MUCH improved EVF to be happy. Fair enough.

Now - how about an OVF with an electronic HUD style overlay that can show a histogram, clipped highlights, overlays of the magazine cover that you're shooting for, a grid, etc. THAT would be cool.

 

[strawman_John]

The HUD could be good.

The buffer does not work, unless your camera is taking frames at the settings you are using. So if you have it set to 1/30 at f8, then it has to take its Video at that, so the problem is your frame rate is too slow. Also it is normal to sacrifice resolution (both depth and actual) to get the video to a suitable speed, so say 6 bit depth, not 14 for example.

and finaly for you, the user, if there is a delay in images getting to the EVF then it makes movind difficult, ie you turn and it takes half a second for the viewfinder to start to show the turn.

Think of it like being drunk.

 

[Kritta]

Good points about the lag... hadn't thought of that. Good analogy. 'hic!'

 

[Lee Jay]

Re the lag issue. I think an EVF can eliminate lag with a buffer.
That is: when you press the shutter, the image from a
lag-amount-of-time ago is the one that is actually stored.

No, that eliminates shutter lag, not viewfinder lag. Viewfinder lag (the time between when you move the camera and you see movement in the EVF) is the problem. No buffer will solve that. You need fast frame rates and fast processing. Fast frame rates mean fast shutter speeds which will in-turn mean fast sensors in low-light, and lots of power utilization all the time if resolution is to be respectable.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[juslilolme]

Ask yourself:
how much mechanical mirror design can be improved in the next years,
and how much electronics can?

The OVF uses zero power, has instant response, and its resolution
exceeds that of your eyes. It's hard to improve on that.

Really? Moving the mirror takes zero power? In any event these are the strengths of the OVF. It's often possible to improve on the weaknesses of something that has strengths.

Which concept is stale, reached the
limits of what it can deliver, and which one is continuously
improved, and there are practically no limits to its further
improvements?

No limits? The quantum efficiency of the sensor is a limit, and the
power required to process images at high speeds as a lower limit.

The latter is not a limit to improvement.

Are we still best served by SLR concept

Easily.

Not really. It depends on the needs of the shooter. A macro shooter may use EVF exclusively, and to better effect, for instance. Someone with high priority on small size/unobtrusiveness may not be best served by a large OVF camera when other alternatives exist that can give excellent image quality.

This discussion around micro 4/3 is odd, because that's not the point
of the format. The point of the format is thinner bodies and more
non-retrofocus lenses. Anything micro 4/3 can do in the viewfinder
department is only a subset of what can be done by SLRs, because an
SLR could just flip the mirror up, and have an EVF just as micro 4/3
will be forced to have.

The point of the format is smallness, for which a key element is eliminating the space-hogging mirror box. So yes, in part it is "the point of the format".

 

[juslilolme]

You can't accurately focus or compose a camera on a fast moving
subject without an Optical viewfinder.

Hmm, these are questionable. EVFs have worked fine for video shooters for many years now.

 

[juslilolme]

I cite OVFs as perfect and often indispensable for architecture,
street, reportage, portrature. Infact perhaps only macro and very low
light conditions suit EVFs more.

And architecture, street, reportage, and portraiture.

 

[BorisK1]

When tracking a moving target, especially for a fast-moving target in
good light, the phase-detection system is actually at a disadvantage.
Whenever the image of the car falls between the AF sensors, the
camera loses its target lock and has to reacquire it. CD-AF system,
on the other hand, can use every pixel of the main sensor - there are
no coverage holes.

Now, initially acquiring the lock can be faster for the
phase-detection system.

It seems you don't understand the advantages of the PD system. I'll
explain.

No need for that, Mr. Condescending. I do understand how both systems work, as you could tell from my posts, had you bothered to actually read them.

However, your attempt at an explanation was useful, because it demonstrated not only that you missed my point, but also your vague grasp of the subject at hand.

[...]

The PD system can take a single sample, and know how much, and in
which direction precise focus will be located.

A single measurement needed to precisely focus on a moving subject. Right.

And again, for emphasis:

Only one sample is needed and, bam, you have it.

A moving target.

I believe we've had enough of a discussion here.

Nice photo, by the way.

Boris

 

[Lee Jay]

The PD system can take a single sample, and know how much, and in
which direction precise focus will be located.

A single measurement needed to precisely focus on a moving subject.
Right.

Talk about not reading. Read what I wrote and what you wrote above.

And again, for emphasis:

Only one sample is needed and, bam, you have it.

A moving target.

Obviously, velocity is first derivative of position and acceleration is first derivative of velocity. So you need a minimum of two points for velocity and three for acceleration. But what I wrote was about position, as shown above. Either way, CD needs many many samples to get one point (position), and PD needs one sample to get one point (position).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[BorisK1]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Boris

 

[Lee Jay]

Ask yourself:
how much mechanical mirror design can be improved in the next years,
and how much electronics can?

The OVF uses zero power, has instant response, and its resolution
exceeds that of your eyes. It's hard to improve on that.

Really? Moving the mirror takes zero power?

When the mirror is up, the OVF is not working. The OVF uses zero power. Taking a picture uses power.

In any event these are
the strengths of the OVF. It's often possible to improve on the
weaknesses of something that has strengths.

Weaknesses include cost and mechanical complexity. Since dirt-cheap SLRs have been available for a long time, and the mirror system has proven extremely reliable, both weaknesses seem to be extremely minor.

Which concept is stale, reached the
limits of what it can deliver, and which one is continuously
improved, and there are practically no limits to its further
improvements?

No limits? The quantum efficiency of the sensor is a limit, and the
power required to process images at high speeds as a lower limit.

The latter is not a limit to improvement.

Power (energy, really) is a scarce commodity in a small, portable device.

Are we still best served by SLR concept

Easily.

Not really. It depends on the needs of the shooter. A macro shooter
may use EVF exclusively, and to better effect, for instance.

I doubt tracking these high-speed bugs around would have been doable with an EVF:

Someone
with high priority on small size/unobtrusiveness may not be best
served by a large OVF camera when other alternatives exist that can
give excellent image quality.

This discussion around micro 4/3 is odd, because that's not the point
of the format. The point of the format is thinner bodies and more
non-retrofocus lenses. Anything micro 4/3 can do in the viewfinder
department is only a subset of what can be done by SLRs, because an
SLR could just flip the mirror up, and have an EVF just as micro 4/3
will be forced to have.

The point of the format is smallness, for which a key element is
eliminating the space-hogging mirror box. So yes, in part it is "the
point of the format".

I doubt the micro 4/3 will end up being small enough to drive sales just on size. The FZ50 has an even smaller sensor, no mirror box, and it's bigger than the E-420 and kit lens. Micro 4/3 will be slightly smaller than conventional SLRs, not nearly as small as pocketable compacts.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[illy]

Generally of static subjects. Reduce that E-System screen to 1.0cm X
0.75cm and make it a dynamic subject, and I doubt that many would
want to use it.

I just thought of something: The modern figthing aircraft targeting
screens are electronic, not optical. With unmanned aircraft, there's
no way to have an optical targeting system, because nobody is there
to look at the screen.

Somehow, they make it work.

Boris

it's called radar
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

 

[BorisK1]

Talk about not reading. Read what I wrote and what you wrote above.

What you wrote was an insult, followed by a vague explanation, both irrelevant to the subjet at hand.

 

[olyflyer]

The OVF uses zero power, has instant response, and its resolution
exceeds that of your eyes. It's hard to improve on that.

Really?

Really. If I switch off my camera, or even remove the battery I can still see the image and with a proper lens I can even focus and set the aperture.

Moving the mirror takes zero power?

Practically zero power, but anyway, moving the mirror has nothing to do with OVF, it has to do with the shutter.

A macro shooter may use EVF exclusively, and to better effect,
for instance. Someone with high priority on small size/unobtrusiveness
may not be best served by a large OVF camera when other alternatives
exist that can give excellent image quality.

Let me guess, you are not a macro shooter, or you have one of those cameras which some people regard as having a dim OVF. I'd definitely not like to have the E-3 OVF being replaced with the best available EVF, and I shoot macro. I mean real macro, down to (or should I say up to) 17:1. The best alternative so far is the OVF of the E-3. The second best (but not available) would be the OVF of the E-3 with a proper focus screen. The EVF is way down (= totally outside) my priority list, even for macro.

The point of the format is smallness, for which a key element is
eliminating the space-hogging mirror box. So yes, in part it is "the
point of the format".

Does it really matter? I mean the idea is to be able to use 4/3 lenses. Now, put on the 50-200 and tell me the 10mm or so is a saving worth the trouble. Of course, if you use the camera with the 25/2.8 than it makes a difference, but come on, with anything else, even the 14-42, the space-hogging mirror box is not an issue.
--
http://www.olyflyer.blogspot.com/