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: 300, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Juggling with one hand: Leica M10 shooting experience (487 comments in total)

I tried an M3 in a shop many years ago and found the rangefinder optics so precise I did not need to go past the optimum point and back again even once, the first time I had used it. That's how good it was. No SLR or DSLR is as good as that. No doubt the later M series are the same. When Leica gets it right no need for frequent new models.

I always choose where to focus manually and use focus and hold, with focus disabled on the shutter release. That also means I can keep the setting across frames without refocusing for a burst. Admittedly for moving subjects, there is something to be said for auto focus and tracking but, apart from that, I prefer my judgement rather than a program choice I have less control of.

Likewise with exposure, I use AE hold, again across frames when I want. I take a spot reading at the centre focus point and base it on a mid tone.

In essence I am using auto to set focus and exposure manually, but then I started 64 years ago, so I know what I am doing.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 15:41 UTC as 51st comment | 4 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)

Further to what I just wrote without letting my bias influence me, can I also ask this?

My main camera is a Nikon D610, which replaced a D300 and I continue to use lenses from when I had a D80 and film, but also recently added the 20mm f/1.8.

I hate the bulk and weight of that but OVF made the decision for me, so I bought an Olympus E-PL3 cheaply as it became obsolete as a compact alternative and added the VF-4 EVF, but only for mucking about. I do not like it nearly as much as OVF because I take shots in HDR lighting most of the time when the shadows though it can become solid black throughout. But most of the time it gives a subjective impression of not being so far off the original scene and I do like that.

But am I right that the majority of the EVF brigade prefer flatter viewfinder images like that in the Fuji X-E2? I hated it when even in bright light with deep shadows there was no dynamic range. Everything was between light and medium grey, including that heavy shadow.

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 20:58 UTC as 62nd comment | 1 reply
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)

Is this a fair summary?

Many of the folk here prefer EVF because that gives them a better idea of what the final image will look like from a doctored image through the electronics which compresses the dynamic range closer to the end result. Some, but not all of the group who grew up with film like me, prefer OVF because we learned to judge from the original when there was no alternative and prefer to see that, having no problem with it. A few OVF fans appear to have no such earlier background.

Most of those starting out with EVF and/or LCD seem to prefer EVF. I suppose that is not surprising, given that reason above and I am sure EVFs will still be around long term and continue to improve.

Those OVF diehards like me probably only need worry if we are in such a small minority that manufacturers abandon us. But will that happen?

Hopefully not. My reading of the comments is that EVF are favoured by the majority but that there is a sizeable minority for OVF. Do you agree?

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 20:35 UTC as 63rd comment | 1 reply
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)
In reply to:

HRC2016: I hope next the team discusses articulated vs tilting viewfinders!
No sense in limiting the pontification to the forums.

Or how about also having a debate about pan and tilt heads versus ball and socket? Your comment gave me the idea to raise an entry for that in the forum for Accessories Talk, which I am about to do after taking a shot of my unusual setup, which is both at the same time. I will explain why!

Link | Posted on Mar 14, 2017 at 20:10 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: One aspect of EVFs that I really don't like is the often childish design of the overlay information, it's not only in the way but often of a distracting brightness and font size.

Granted you have the option to shrink the view in the EVF and place the info above / below - but even this is ugly, and the shooting view then becomes too small for how the EVFs are optimally designed, so generally overlay is the only way to go.

Ok you can turn some EVF info off, though this is often in terms of full or minimum.

I wish EVFs had a large shooting view, with the info just at the bottom discretely, in one or two colours and the info not too bright [or with a brightness adjustment], and in a small professional font, basically to mimic info displayed in OVFs.

The reason some EVF information is so intrusive is that they display too much, as you say. I think that sometimes it is because they have no clue as to what actually is useful on a regular basis.

If I can make a rather obtuse analogy, again because they have no clue as to what actually is useful. The first microwave I bought was an expensive one and very confusing until I realised all the settings for every possible menu were to impress you. In fact all that really was there was only high, medium, low, a timer and a start button. Once I realised that and ignored everything else I was home and dry.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 13:09 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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 277th comment | 10 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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? (890 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 292nd comment | 8 replies
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (890 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
Total: 300, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »