keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years. Likes to communicate and learn from others with expert knowledge, especially if they also live in the real world, have galleries or links to really good photos and put their camera to good use.

Comments

Total: 275, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

David GranoDeOro: The instant view of OVF is easy on the eyes and replicates the dynamic range our eyes will see. But this is only meant for framing when shooting with film per the very reason it was invented. But the days of film are behind us and today to shoot in OVF is quickly showing it's age when compared to modern EVFs as the formers benefits give way to ever improving technology.

The very first EVF I've used was on the Fuji HS10 which was after using a Canon 5D for 3 years working in a photo studio and renting out a Canon T3i during my time at SCAD. In that time I greatly enjoyed the OVF but had the constant issue of chimping. After every shot I had to check the photo on the live view to be curtain I had exposed correctly and had nailed the focus and froze the action. Often I wouldn't realize I had moved from strikinglydifferent lighting all indoors and went an entire shoot with the same settings only to find many of the photos overexposed, blurry, missed focused, etc. Chimping wasn't a solution as I would often miss shots or would have the subject waiting while I checked.

Now on my Fuji HS10 the EVF was terrible in every respect to OVF except one crucial difference that blew away most of its weaknesses and that's exposure preview. This alone allowed me adjust on the fly while actively shooting and with playback in EVF I never missed a shot. Bc of this function I quickly developed my own style of shooting around the weaknesses of EVF to get as close the my experience with OVF. When time came for my first purchase of a DSLR I had a difficult choice. Go back to the system of OVF or see if there were EVF DSLRs. This easily sent me in Sony's direction as they were the only ones doing DSLR with EVF. After a few years shooting with the A65 I upgraded to the A7Rii.

There simply is no point to OVF looking through the lens when the camera will never record what you have seen as no camera is capable of recording the dynamic range of the human eye, nor the perception of the brain. It's far better to see what the camera will see and adjust in real time before taking the shot.

Today's EVF has nearly matched OVF in every way while exceeding it in orhers. And contrary to the comments of DPreviewers writer's comments it's incredibly useful in low ligjt. I've used the Sony A7Sii in total darkness out doors where I was shooting the milky way for the first time. I was amazed at the fact that it was able to display a live view of the milky way by gaining up on ISO and setting my shutter to 30s. Never before could I actively frame the galaxy in real time through the viewfinder before taking the shot.

I also love to focus manually with an 85mm f1.4 but on an OVF this was a pain as nailing focus truly was guess work. EVF on the other hand allows for image magnification and focus highlights which utterly trounced my experience with manual focus with OVF.

As far as I'm concerned OVF is a thing of the past best suited to diehard purists who would enjoy it along with driving the Model T and hand writing letters to friends....it's more of an emotional self serving experience that is no longer practical nor reasonable in today's world.

Just my humble opinion.

I agree with you only that EVFs are better in low light.

If you do not know what the result will look like before you take the picture by looking at the full dynamic range of the original or the same tonal range perhaps compressed ever so slightly through an OVF, then perhaps your arguments in favour of the EVF hold sway. Except that the EVF is not going to show you realistic tonal gradation and I rely upon that to decide what will make a good picture. Of course, the end product will have considerable compression in it, yet with a good lens, sensor and the skills to use software properly, the tones will essentially remain in proportion.

IMO the trouble today is that a lot of people do not have the basic skills, rely upon their equipment to tell them as much as they are ever going to know and have no interest in developing real expertise. It may work for them but the photographer with serious intentions will want to learn and will learn the basics and use them to his advantage.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 07:08 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: These same people who prefer EVFs probably prefer lenses that distort so much they rely upon software to make them usable. LOL

If it is a crime to know what you are talking about and are willing to say it then I plead guilty,

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 06:34 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: So many comments to "Reading some of the comments here" - replies there are hidden.

I prefer CDs to digital but only to avoid bad clicks and pops which are very distracting. If high end audio surpasses digital and the reason is audio engineers buggering up the signals, then we cannot stop them doing it - just like we cannot stop the overlays in digital cameras which you cannot always turn off.

The problem with digital is that it is so easy that quite unnecessary info is forced upon us. The media is overwhelmed with crap, so it is a chore determining correct factual information. The President violently complains about it but is quite happy to invent facts to his agenda...

I used to work in MISinformation Technology. Hated it. Many of those who prefer EVFs over OVFs were born into the electronic age, so ignorant of the real world deferring to an artificial interpretation of it. They do not have a clue so lose nothing by not seeing it through the EVF eyepiece. Not all of them though.

You probably are more or less right. However with digital there are more opportunities to cut corners and far too much of it in practice, much of it quite unnecessary too.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 21:08 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: These same people who prefer EVFs probably prefer lenses that distort so much they rely upon software to make them usable. LOL

So, if it is snobbish to know what you are talking about and speak with conviction, I have no problem with that. Not that it is.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 20:17 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: The whole point of SLRs was to get you as close as possible to seeing how the camera will capture the scene, and EVFs do that better. Beyond that, they free you from seeing your composition only by the (dim) light that comes through the lens, especially stopped down. They also free the camera design from the awkward mirror/pentaprisim optics and mechanics, simultaneously allowing shorter/better-utilized space between the lens rear and focal plane... and an EVF live view stream can be electronically routed anywhere. As for timing, early initiation of captures allows true zero-lag capture -- which might not be widely implemented yet, but is impossible with a moving-mirror SLR.

In sum, stop thinking about digital cameras as emulating film. They are an entirely different medium, and EVFs / live view are key components of that medium.

"Many sensors now exceed the instantaneous DR of human sight (e.g., all the Sony A7 series does". And how about the VF images, do they have that same dynamic range? Yours is a flawed argument.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: These same people who prefer EVFs probably prefer lenses that distort so much they rely upon software to make them usable. LOL

My advanced raw processor is super-duper but does not do correction of lens distortion. It is super duper because the tonal gradation is magically good with both single frames and exposure bracketing, often even without having to tweak the controls manually. I am not prepared to sacrifice that to correct a poor lens design foist on us by manufacturers needlessly taking the least line of resistance to increase their profits. LOL again.

"I quite regularly forget what ISO is with my D800" Then half press the release again. All that info is in my D610 without encroaching on the image either. Surely yours is the same.

My views are opinions instead of accepting the claptrack those manufacturers have brainwashed to their profit margins.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 20:05 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Strictly electronic, and tiltable is a must.

or yours.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 18:13 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

These same people who prefer EVFs probably prefer lenses that distort so much they rely upon software to make them usable. LOL

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:59 UTC as 274th comment | 10 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

ttran88: Not even a debate, EVF for Life!!

OVF even beyond the grave!!!

As I am a senior citizen, I will be looking down to confirm that I was right soon enough and not looking down through an EVF either.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:55 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: The whole point of SLRs was to get you as close as possible to seeing how the camera will capture the scene, and EVFs do that better. Beyond that, they free you from seeing your composition only by the (dim) light that comes through the lens, especially stopped down. They also free the camera design from the awkward mirror/pentaprisim optics and mechanics, simultaneously allowing shorter/better-utilized space between the lens rear and focal plane... and an EVF live view stream can be electronically routed anywhere. As for timing, early initiation of captures allows true zero-lag capture -- which might not be widely implemented yet, but is impossible with a moving-mirror SLR.

In sum, stop thinking about digital cameras as emulating film. They are an entirely different medium, and EVFs / live view are key components of that medium.

The whole point of SLRs was to avoid the parallax errors in optical viewfinders and to give accurate coverage for a variety of interchangeable lenses. It was not to see how the camera will capture the scene, but of what.

The how should be in the skill and experience of the photographer, not in the electronics of an EVF.

Show me one EVF where it is with any accuracy whatever the dynamic range of the original.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:51 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: So many comments to "Reading some of the comments here" - replies there are hidden.

I prefer CDs to digital but only to avoid bad clicks and pops which are very distracting. If high end audio surpasses digital and the reason is audio engineers buggering up the signals, then we cannot stop them doing it - just like we cannot stop the overlays in digital cameras which you cannot always turn off.

The problem with digital is that it is so easy that quite unnecessary info is forced upon us. The media is overwhelmed with crap, so it is a chore determining correct factual information. The President violently complains about it but is quite happy to invent facts to his agenda...

I used to work in MISinformation Technology. Hated it. Many of those who prefer EVFs over OVFs were born into the electronic age, so ignorant of the real world deferring to an artificial interpretation of it. They do not have a clue so lose nothing by not seeing it through the EVF eyepiece. Not all of them though.

Fair comment, not at all smart*** but you are wrong. Digital stores only a sample and extrapolates what is missing but something is lost. In audio, it is some of the harmonics but usually it is not enough to notice.

I agree that in time EVFs may be as good as OVFs but most of the arguments here are about the here and now.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:46 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan: It depends on the OVF, depends on the EVF; but to a greater extent depends on the situation.

I think it's a moot point though, the majority of pictures are now taken on a screen. See the cameraphone for further details ;)

"It depends on the OVF, depends on the EVF; but to a greater extent depends on the situation."

And as I have been saying, it depends upon the knowledge and skill of the photographer, not of the images he sees through an EVF. The skilled rely upon the images on their eyeballs captured directly from real life or at less than 100% through an OVF with exactly the same tonal range and gradation as the original, in a decent OVF nearly as bright.

My concern is that we are conditioned today all over the place to less than accurate artifices, so much so that for many the real world is becoming alien. For example, they prefer Facebook and Twitter than face to face. Some prefer EVF to OVF because they do not know what the image will look like in the camera by looking at the real scene. If the EVF was the same as the latter then, fair enough but in most cases it isn't. Some of them prefer histograms, clipping indications etc only because they do not have a clue without it, many also with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:38 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: So many comments to "Reading some of the comments here" - replies there are hidden.

I prefer CDs to digital but only to avoid bad clicks and pops which are very distracting. If high end audio surpasses digital and the reason is audio engineers buggering up the signals, then we cannot stop them doing it - just like we cannot stop the overlays in digital cameras which you cannot always turn off.

The problem with digital is that it is so easy that quite unnecessary info is forced upon us. The media is overwhelmed with crap, so it is a chore determining correct factual information. The President violently complains about it but is quite happy to invent facts to his agenda...

I used to work in MISinformation Technology. Hated it. Many of those who prefer EVFs over OVFs were born into the electronic age, so ignorant of the real world deferring to an artificial interpretation of it. They do not have a clue so lose nothing by not seeing it through the EVF eyepiece. Not all of them though.

Tommi K1, you seem not to understand.

If you knew what you were doing entirely, you would look at the real world and know how a photo of it would look. It cannot look the same because any photo technology can only represent a subset of reality. The OVF shows 99.9% reality on a smaller scale. No EVF shows the same unreality of the photo versus the real scene. Many of those who prefer the unreality of their EVF do so because for them it is ignorance that makes it seem to them like a realistic approximation of the result of pressing the camara release. Usually, it isn't.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:22 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

So many comments to "Reading some of the comments here" - replies there are hidden.

I prefer CDs to digital but only to avoid bad clicks and pops which are very distracting. If high end audio surpasses digital and the reason is audio engineers buggering up the signals, then we cannot stop them doing it - just like we cannot stop the overlays in digital cameras which you cannot always turn off.

The problem with digital is that it is so easy that quite unnecessary info is forced upon us. The media is overwhelmed with crap, so it is a chore determining correct factual information. The President violently complains about it but is quite happy to invent facts to his agenda...

I used to work in MISinformation Technology. Hated it. Many of those who prefer EVFs over OVFs were born into the electronic age, so ignorant of the real world deferring to an artificial interpretation of it. They do not have a clue so lose nothing by not seeing it through the EVF eyepiece. Not all of them though.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:00 UTC as 289th comment | 8 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Magnar W: When I had some Sony A900 cameras, with one of the best full frame camera OVF's on the marked, I got an Sony A55 just to test out an EVF/SLT camera for some intensive weeks of commersial shooting at the west coast and northern parts of Norway. After a week or so, I missed the EVF information and the reference to the final results so much when I used the A900's that I rarely picked up those cameras any more. Also, I spent a full afternoon to learn how to shoot action with this jaggy and pretty poor EVF. After adjusting my technique a bit, the EVF worked amazingly well for this kind of shooting. For low light work, like polar light photography and astro, the EVF was a clear winner, with it's superb focusing tools. Some months later I left the OVF and sold my A900 cameras, and since that moment I have never looked back.

Sure, the viewfinder is about personal taste, so I understand those going for OVF cameras. I could not use both, but others happily combine OVF and EVF cameras! ;-)

Maybe because some people are more interested in taking picures than being overloaded with unnecessary information. Just because, with digital, they can put everything there under the sun, does not mean they have to do so.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 16:24 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

Reading some of the comments here, my fear is that many people prefer EVFs so, in the future, I may have limited choice of OVF or even none.

When I switched from analogue audio I waited ten years to let the new technology overcome its teething troubles. Yet in a hi-f- store when I took the opportunity to make the comparison, a £25 cartridge in Linn turntable sounded better. With that the ambience of the hall where the music was being played was fullsome, with digital there was none.

I used to work in Information Technology, did so for forty years, so I hardly am prejudiced against it. Yet on the internet fake news is making it a problem with real news, which is which? In photography, I like to see what I am taking, not a fake digital compromise.

Maybe EVFs are a craze that will pass, just like in Britain vinyl sales of music are growing faster than CDs again!

Not sure about this but I suspect analogue always is better unless you go to digital for something analogue cannot provide.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:45 UTC as 328th comment | 8 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

rev32: It will be interesting to see if people coming into photography with EVF start developing a strong preference for them. Personally I grew up with OVF so thats what I prefer. EVF just seems weird.

Very interested in what you say and I am sure you are right. A large transparency looks better than an image on any monitor and that looks better than any print.

Yet my preference is for an A2 size print on matt paper framed and hanging on the wall and a picture good enough to warrant that treatment. It is for that reason I thought my D300 was perfectly good enough even if more recent cameras are better. Recently I bought a D610 and the primary benefit is that lenses I bought when using film and still rel;y upon now give me the wider angles I most like for landscapes. If the images with it are better quality that is also worth having.

However, image quality is not the only consideration. I think it must be psychological - if it is good enough to hang on the wall, it might be good enough to see in a gallery - the picture that is, not the image quality.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:25 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

Luisifer: ... i prefere http://www.photoextract.com/photo/568263.html
(it looks like electronic, isn't it) ,-)

Not sure what this has to do with anything - unless you are saying that EVF images look like this!

But WOWWWWWWWWWWWW. Best collection at http://www.photoextract.com I have ever seen by a long, long way.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 13:10 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)

I once picked up a Leica M3 in a store many years ago and found that the focusing through the rangefinder is optically so precise you turn the lens focusing ring one way and know immediately when to stop without going past the right point. This was the case even the first time you ever tried the camera. That is amazing.

A Leica rangefinder OV > any OVF > any EVF and so much so even having to have an accessory viewfinder for ultra wide on a Leica M would not put me off.

The film Leica M was the gold standard, especially the viewfinder / rangefinder. I expect it still is. If I could get an accessory Albalda viewfinder for it to cover 20mm, better still even wider, I would not be put off, might even get an M10 and a Tri-Elmar and, if I have to, sell the house and live in the car.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:47 UTC as 343rd comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (888 comments in total)
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Strictly electronic, and tiltable is a must.

Bothering to say just as much as this conveys more about the writer than what he writes.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
Total: 275, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »