Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: thierrylegros396 on March 26, 2013, 02:03:21 pm

Title: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: thierrylegros396 on March 26, 2013, 02:03:21 pm
Hi to all.

I've read with interrest the article "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders" and wanted to answer because I'm more optimistic ;)

OK, the Canon G15 viewfinder (among others) suffer from that problem, it's really evident !

But to my big surprise, the viewfinder of my RX100 can be really better if you tweak it.

As I shoot RAW+JPG, I've seen that if you change the setting of the JPG (less contrast) and set the DRO on "Auto", oh fine, you can see deep in the shadows !!

Unfortunately you cannot do this with Canon compact cameras, shame on Canon !

Please Mr. Canon, Sony has implemented that and it works, do the same with your cameras.

Have a Nice day.

Thierry

Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: xpatUSA on March 26, 2013, 03:42:47 pm
After getting used to my first EVF (Panasonic DMC-GH1) I like it more and more, especially the live luminance histogram in the top left corner. Also the automatic X10 for manual focus works very well for my old diabetically afflicted eyes.

I am beginning like my conventional viewfinder less as time goes by . .
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: pegelli on March 26, 2013, 05:04:27 pm
I see the same effect as Michael but it doesn't bother me as much, and as Thierry says there is a way to tweek it further to your liking (what I sometimes do)

I also see the opposite disadvantage with an OVF. Sometimes your eye adaptation is so quick that contrast ranges that seem OK in the viewfinder cannot be caught within the Dynamic range of the sensor.

I still use both (NEX 6 EVF and Sony A700 & A850 OVF), and while both have advantages and disadvantages I can work OK with both.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on March 26, 2013, 05:55:18 pm
My only problems with my current EVF are that the light output causes me extreme eye strain in low light and in some low light situations the EVF fails to display what's easily visible by eye. These are both killers for me and I'm struggling to invest any more serious money in CSC's.

I do think that CSC's are the way forward for me but I need EVF technology to improve and resolve my issues.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AFairley on March 26, 2013, 06:51:31 pm
I use both (Olympus E-M5 and Nikon D800E) and while I prefer the "presence" of the OVF, I really like the ability to dial in exposure adjustment with the more-or-less WYSIWYG view of the Oly EVF, though sometimes the ability to see detail in dark shadows is a pain.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: andre_ on March 27, 2013, 08:50:44 am
I use a Fuji X-Pro1 along my D800, and my preference is by far for the optical viewfinder... But not for the flaws described in the article.

What most annoys me in the Electronic viewfinder is the lag time between the action and the viewfinder.
X-Pro1 is not an action camera at all, but for the street photography the lag time is really a problem. And I consider a parade as "street".

I've never look in a hybrid viewfinder like the last Sony DSLR-like, but if we add all the issues together, I'm pretty sure we are still quite far from a real step forward to change the current DSLR.  :-\
a_
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: David S on March 27, 2013, 10:25:21 am
The Olympus OMD E-5 has a 120 cycle setting for the EVF that solves most movement problems.
Not OVF but pretty good.

Dave S

 
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: andre_ on March 27, 2013, 10:30:04 am
The Olympus OMD E-5 has a 120 cycle setting for the EVF that solves most movement problems.
Not OVF but pretty good.
Happy to read this.
I'm a fan of electronic viewfinder's idea (viewfinders, not rear monitor  ;)), but I wait patiently...  :)
a_
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: thierrylegros396 on March 27, 2013, 12:47:53 pm
Happy to read this.
I'm a fan of electronic viewfinder's idea (viewfinders, not rear monitor  ;)), but I wait patiently...  :)
a_

Yes Andre, sorry but that's only a few hours after sending the post that I discovered the error !!

But as others said EVF are also "tweakables" to your taste for Sony and most other brands.

It's really a pitty that Canon only allows JPG to be configurable, but not RAW+JPG.

I use the annexed JPG to the RAW files only to review and check for clipped pixels and focus accuracy.

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 27, 2013, 01:01:26 pm
It might be worth noting that while you cannot see what the final image will look like in an EVF, you have the same problem in an OVF. Photographers have always had to develop the skill to interpret how a scene will render with their system.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: thierrylegros396 on March 27, 2013, 01:55:44 pm
Yes and with an OVF, if you are in manual mode, you may have some hard overexposure even if the image looks good in the viewfinder !!

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Vladimirovich on March 27, 2013, 02:19:21 pm
Yes and with an OVF, if you are in manual mode, you may have some hard overexposure even if the image looks good in the viewfinder !!

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry

that's why you have blinkies and/or LV histogram
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: andre_ on March 27, 2013, 02:26:43 pm
that's why you have blinkies and/or LV histogram
Fundamental!

The EVF is very sensible, so the aperture must change (and became smaller than in the photo) during the framing.
What you see in the EVF cannnot be exctly what you are photographing, because of the difference in sensitivity between the viewfinder and the sensor.
a_
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Fine_Art on March 27, 2013, 03:07:46 pm
I am a waist level finder type guy, as in the Mamiya 67s. My A55 has an electronic viewfinder which I rarely use. I much prefer pointing the tiltable LCD up on the tripod to look down at it.

Having said that I think the electronic viewfinder has advantages for low light photography. Clearly it is much easier to see what a dark setting would be like, especially with the histograms.

On a FF camera I think there is enough detail in an optical finder to make Optical plus back screen for live view the best combination. On small sensor cameras an optical finder is often just too dark. Making it bigger to provide more detail will make it even more dark. Lets face it most of our shots are not in mid day sun, we typically shoot within 2 hrs from sun up and sun down.

Crank the screen brightness from the menu. Bracket. It's the lesser evil on a small sensor camera IMO.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on March 27, 2013, 11:58:50 pm
To each his own. I have used Nikon DSLRs, Pentax DSLRs ( I still have a K 5) and now use Sony Nex cameras (5n and 7) and I will never buy another camera without an EVF. I have become addicted to in viewfinder histograms, focus peaking and magnified view. As a result, the number of shots I take that are exposed correctly and critically focused are now 90%+. My Pentax limited lenses never performed as well as they do now on my Nex because so many of my shots are focused spot on. I'm usually able to focus at my shooting aperture, so forget about focus shift. When doing portraits, I'm able to set focus peaking (low and red), so I just get a little red glint in the eye when it's perfectly in focus. With OVF's, you never really now if the AF point is exactly where you want it.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on March 28, 2013, 06:50:56 am
... and I will never buy another camera without an EVF. I have become addicted to in viewfinder histograms, focus peaking and magnified view. As a result, the number of shots I take that are exposed correctly and critically focused are now 90%+.

A shock for me was doing a little test shot of a high DR scene with my G1 and 5D. Even though the 5D is (I imagine...) capable of capturing a much greater DR I was able to capture the image first time with the G1 and process it in CS5 to get an acceptable result. With the 5D I had to take multiple images effectively guessing how much exposure compensation to dial in with each shot and then checking the result until getting the best shot.

But, I have to balance that against the pain of having a torch shining directly into my eye.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: mmbma on March 28, 2013, 10:26:56 am
How do you hook up an EVF to RX100? Are you talking about the live view LCD?
Hi to all.

I've read with interrest the article "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders" and wanted to answer because I'm more optimistic ;)

OK, the Canon G15 viewfinder (among others) suffer from that problem, it's really evident !

But to my big surprise, the viewfinder of my RX100 can be really better if you tweak it.

As I shoot RAW+JPG, I've seen that if you change the setting of the JPG (less contrast) and set the DRO on "Auto", oh fine, you can see deep in the shadows !!

Unfortunately you cannot do this with Canon compact cameras, shame on Canon !

Please Mr. Canon, Sony has implemented that and it works, do the same with your cameras.

Have a Nice day.

Thierry


Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on March 28, 2013, 12:29:20 pm

But, I have to balance that against the pain of having a torch shining directly into my eye.

I said I would never buy another camera without an EVF. I did not say that I actually enjoy using a camera with an EVF more than a camera with an OVF. ;D
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on March 28, 2013, 09:15:31 pm
We all have to suffer for our art  ;D
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: CptZar on March 29, 2013, 04:43:30 am
To each his own. I have used Nikon DSLRs, Pentax DSLRs ( I still have a K 5) and now use Sony Nex cameras (5n and 7) and I will never buy another camera without an EVF. I have become addicted to in viewfinder histograms, focus peaking and magnified view. As a result, the number of shots I take that are exposed correctly and critically focused are now 90%+. My Pentax limited lenses never performed as well as they do now on my Nex because so many of my shots are focused spot on. I'm usually able to focus at my shooting aperture, so forget about focus shift. When doing portraits, I'm able to set focus peaking (low and red), so I just get a little red glint in the eye when it's perfectly in focus. With OVF's, you never really now if the AF point is exactly where you want it.

1+
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: OldRoy on March 30, 2013, 02:12:00 pm
OMD and D700 user. The ability to see a live histogram (despite its derivation) trumps just about every other consideration for me.
Roy
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on April 17, 2013, 01:29:23 pm
I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).

If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Regards
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: jonathanlung on April 17, 2013, 07:14:38 pm
I can leave my OVF running 24/7 without draining my battery...
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on April 17, 2013, 07:21:52 pm
Based on Michael's just published non-review of the Fuji X Pro-1, I guess being able to see a live histogram in the OVF and being able to switch from OVF to EVF for magnified view is probably the ultimate view finder experience right now. I do find the viewfinder aspect of this camera appealing. If Fuji figures out how to add focus peaking to their EVF mode I will be really tempted to get into this system.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: grzybu on April 18, 2013, 04:21:28 am
If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Yeah, that's really annoying. Why not to allow people to see RAW histogram? Burn it deep down into menu if you don't want casual user to enable it by mistake (not that casual user knows what histogram is for).
Title: EVF's and the non-issue of battery life
Post by: BJL on April 18, 2013, 11:38:34 am
I can leave my OVF running 24/7 without draining my battery...
And I can and do leave my EVF running, and indeed can neglect to turn off the camera, because there are timed automatic shut-offs with user selectable delays. Anyway, the EVF screen is far smaller than the rear LCD, so its power usage is considerably less. The only way I can drain a battery in a single day is by taking a great number of photographs, not EVF battery drain.

Arguments this weak in favor of the "old ways" smell of technological Bourbonism from people who have not tried the thing they are criticizing.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: jonathanlung on April 19, 2013, 12:46:11 am
:/ I've used an EVF on an old bridge camera (Fuji S5200), borrowed a Nikon V1, and been handed a few modern EVF Fujis. The new finders are good, but I doubt that a single battery is going to fare well for sports or event photography where one spends a lot of time looking through the viewfinder waiting for a particular moment. I've "started" (well, I guess I've been doing it for a few years) using live view on an SLR for focusing an 85 f/1.4 in low light because it *is* much better than trying to do that through a viewfinder (even with electronic rangefinder), but I definitely feel the battery drain, even though I focus once and then go back to regular "mirrored" shooting.

But you're right... I come from the split-prism era of viewfinders.

(Also, I thought EVFs, though smaller, still had similar power consumption to their large-sized LCD counterparts. Is this no longer true?)
Title: Why not both?
Post by: Jack Hogan on April 19, 2013, 03:30:32 am
I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).

If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Regards


Good points.  What I personally would prefer is an Optical View Finder with some diagnostics in the form of togglable in-finder heads up display, which some cameras come close to offering: live Raw histogram and blinkies.  A metering mode I would use often is one in which we could set the maximum number of Raw sensels blown, similar to the auto feature of some raw-converters.  And Ideally I'd also like to be able to point to a specific small area of the zoomable pre or post view to indicate that I do not want it to be blown, so please set the Raw clipping point just above those levels.  I'd even be willing to switch brands for these features, aotbe (are you listening stodgy manufacturers?).

As to why in 2013 with more than 11 stops of PDR we still do not have Raw histograms and blinkies from the OOC image remains an unsolved mystery to me.  We've been asking this for years and it only takes the will to implement it in firmware.  We could have it tomorrow if vendors woke up.  Or am I overlooking some technical difficulty?

Jack
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Petrus on April 19, 2013, 05:29:19 am
Video viewfinders always lag behind of what is really happening. For many kinds of shooting it is unacceptable. Optical for me most of the time, thank you. For still lives and landscape EVF is fine, for action, no.
Title: Re: Why not both?
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on April 19, 2013, 04:21:01 pm
As to why in 2013 with more than 11 stops of PDR we still do not have Raw histograms and blinkies from the OOC image remains an unsolved mystery to me.  We've been asking this for years and it only takes the will to implement it in firmware.  We could have it tomorrow if vendors woke up.  Or am I overlooking some technical difficulty?

What you ask for is technically trivial (in fact to obtain the JPEG histogram you need to process the RAW file first, to obtain the RAW histogram you just need to plot the RAW numbers in the appropiate scale), but perhaps difficult to explain to non-advanced users. 4 years ago this was already discussed in LL (Camera manufacturers PLEASE: when RAW histograms and an ETTR mode?  (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=33267)), there are not many reasons to be optimistic about it.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Fine_Art on April 19, 2013, 06:36:04 pm
Then they can cut costs in the camera by replacing the traditional metering system with RAW histogram and % overexposing (for specular highlights like shiny chrome). You would always get proper ETTR exposures. Brackets would be +/- % brightness from that point.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: kers on April 19, 2013, 07:32:29 pm
At my age I need reading glasses and one thing i really like about the EVF is that you can see the EVF sharp looking at infinity. So i do not need reading glasses to see everything sharp. ( the problem i do have if i look on the back screen)
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on April 22, 2013, 09:10:44 am
I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).
...


No, the reason why some prefer OVF is because they tried it, and its simply better for photography. Please bear in mind that photography is more than having a machine producing a file, its about seeing a picture and being able to create a photo. The small matter of metering and correct exposure is utter trivial compared to having a tool that lets you see and compose a photo. On this regard the EVFs are still a few light-years behind OVFs, but we can always hope  :D.

The mark of a newbie is to believe that the camera makes a good photo, instead of realizing that most modern camera's are in fact filters between a good photo and the photographer. An OVF filters less, an EVF more.

Still, I don't hate the EVF on my NEX-7, its simply a much poorer photographic tool in most of my photographic situations than a M or RD-1.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on April 22, 2013, 12:57:14 pm
No, the reason why some prefer OVF is because they tried it, and its simply better for photography.

For the record, I disagree your generalization.

I do feel that for sports or fast moving photography, an OVF is preferable. I also am sympathetic to those people who say they find using an OVF to be a more pleasant experience. However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher than with my Nikon or Pentax DSLRs using an OVF. I'd say with the EVF I usually get 90% + critically focused images vs. 70-80% with an OVF, which I consider to be a significant difference. Plus, with the eye level histogram in the EVF, my exposures are much more accurate.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on April 22, 2013, 04:27:41 pm
For the record, I disagree your generalization.

I do feel that for sports or fast moving photography, an OVF is preferable. I also am sympathetic to those people who say they find using an OVF to be a more pleasant experience. However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher than with my Nikon or Pentax DSLRs using an OVF. I'd say with the EVF I usually get 90% + critically focused images vs. 70-80% with an OVF, which I consider to be a significant difference. Plus, with the eye level histogram in the EVF, my exposures are much more accurate.

Again, focus is but one issue for creating a photo. But: All subjective and objective testing I have seen from the new M concludes that the OVF RF is by far more acurate than focus by EVF peaking/zoom for wides to short tele. As you might know the M have both, so its fairly easy to compare.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on April 22, 2013, 04:56:15 pm
Again, focus is but one issue for creating a photo. But: All subjective and objective testing I have seen from the new M concludes that the OVF RF is by far more acurate than focus by EVF peaking/zoom for wides to short tele. As you might know the M have both, so its fairly easy to compare.

The EVF helps with both focus and exposure as I mentioned above.

I've never tried focusing the new M (I didn't realize it has focus peaking). I'm not sure who said the RF is more accurate than an EVF, but I don't believe it. I have had Katz Eye split prism focus screens installed and checked by Katz Eye on my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, which I've used for several years. there is no way the split prism focus screens are as accurate as the EVF on my NEX 7.

It's pretty common to have a rangefinder camera or lens get out of calibration and you will never know it until you look at the photos, in which case it may be too late. With the EVF, you are seeing what the sensor is "seeing." I don't understand how a rangefinder could be more accurate. This is why so many commentators and users wanted Leica to add live view.

Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on April 23, 2013, 11:04:53 am
The EVF helps with both focus and exposure as I mentioned above.

I've never tried focusing the new M (I didn't realize it has focus peaking). I'm not sure who said the RF is more accurate than an EVF, but I don't believe it. I have had Katz Eye split prism focus screens installed and checked by Katz Eye on my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, which I've used for several years. there is no way the split prism focus screens are as accurate as the EVF on my NEX 7.

It's pretty common to have a rangefinder camera or lens get out of calibration and you will never know it until you look at the photos, in which case it may be too late. With the EVF, you are seeing what the sensor is "seeing." I don't understand how a rangefinder could be more accurate. This is why so many commentators and users wanted Leica to add live view.



Enjoy:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/i_will_not_buy_that_camera_i_promise.shtml
"On a lark, I decided to compare my focus through the EVF with focusing using the rangefinder. My jaw dropped.  The rangefinder was definitely more accurate and more sensitive to very small movements of the focusing ring. I was also reaching the correct focus point much faster.

I remember Leica many years ago claiming that rangefinder focusing was significantly more accurate than focusing on the screen of an SLR. Well folks, it turns out that focusing with the M rangefinder is definitely more accurate than focusing through the EVF even at high magnification with peaking.  It also has the added advantage that unlike the EVF, it is not affected by the lens aperture."

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/the-m-typ-240---leicas-very-grown-up-new-baby-reviewed
"The rangefinder itself seems to have been redesigned and, with my lenses at least, is a great deal more accurate and reliable than on my previous M bodies. So much so, in fact, that for now at least (time will tell if it 'drifts' as the older design was liable to do) I prefer to use the rangefinder rather than the EVF for critical focus. Really. I ran a test with the camera on a tripod and a target at intermediate distance and with each of my six lenses (including an F1 Noctilux) and wide open, I focussed three frames with the RF and three with the EVF and it got every single shot perfect with the RF, whereas the EVF scored two shots out of 18 noticeably 'off'. Kudos to the rangefinder"

and:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20110302_3-RangefinderFocusing.html
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on April 23, 2013, 12:50:39 pm
Alf, like I said, I've never used the new M and am not interested in buying one. Maybe there is something to the "redesign" of the rangefinder that makes it more accurate than an EVF, but I still find that hard to believe despite the testimonials for obvious reasons. What's your suggestion for someone who doesn't want to spend $7,000 on a camera body and who wants to be comfortable that they can nail focus 90%+?
Title: Leica RF vs Leica's poor live view implementation is not the main question
Post by: BJL on April 23, 2013, 04:22:01 pm
1. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/i_will_not_buy_that_camera_i_promise.shtml

2. http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/the-m-typ-240---leicas-very-grown-up-new-baby-reviewed

3. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20110302_3-RangefinderFocusing.html
Firstly, for most of us, the only viable alternative is the TTL OVF of an SLR, not rangefinder focusing. So those links seem to be a doubly irrelevant comparison of rangefinder OVF (instead of SLR OVF) to what seems to be a rather poor first effort at live view implementation from Leica rather than comparing to the current state of the art (probably Olympus or Panasonic or Sony NEX.)

On to the links:

1. This is not so much a review as a love letter, so no further comment.

2. I have to think that the problem is some combination of user inexperience with live view focusing and/or serious deficiencies in Leica's implementation.
Partly because the magnified live view at a selected focusing point can show a level of detail beyond what the human eye can resolve in an OVF and I have had no such problems with EVF focusing on my E-M5; partly because of that review's numerous criticisms of Leica's live view implementation:
Quote
... the EVF merely chooses the best focus at each aperture on centre, thereby shifting the field of focus as the lens exhibits slight focus shift.
...
 there are some quite 'first generation' touches to it that annoy. Firstly, you can only focus on the central point. There's simply no option to move the focus zone around the scene. ... the over/under exposure 'blinkie' warnings do not display after taking the shot. ... the focus peaking 'shimmer' is too often very hard to see. Others have noted the same.
...
The LCD suffers the same problem as the EVF when it comes to the inability to move the focus point around the screen. I'm sure there's a good reason why they couldn't do this but really, it is a waste of the potential of Live View.
By the way, if he is using focus peaking for precise manual focus, he is using wrong tool, in my opinion.

3. is a pay site cannot read, but anyway from the title it is just about RF focusing on the M9, not a comparison to live view focusing.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on April 23, 2013, 06:25:20 pm
Alf, like I said, I've never used the new M and am not interested in buying one. Maybe there is something to the "redesign" of the rangefinder that makes it more accurate than an EVF, but I still find that hard to believe despite the testimonials for obvious reasons. What's your suggestion for someone who doesn't want to spend $7,000 on a camera body and who wants to be comfortable that they can nail focus 90%+?
Jeff, I would recommend a NEX and suggest that they would have to live with a limited VF and handling but otherwise great IQ. But I was under the impression that we were discussing OVF versus EVF, and is simply saying that some OVFs like the RS IMO have great photographic qualities. The same goes for OVFs from top of the line FF DSLRs and 30 year old SLRs that imo are much better for seing a photo. Look through a OM-2 and then try seeing the same through a NEX-7. For me its a big paradox that most of the camera makers are not prioritizing the ability for us to see what we are photographing.

Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year  :)
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on April 23, 2013, 06:47:47 pm
Alf, I find my focus accuracy to be so much better with my NEX 7 vs. my Pentax K-5 (with the Katz Eye split prism screen) that I am now using all of my Pentax limited lenses almost exclusively on my NEX and will be selling my K-5 as soon as I get around to it. Possibly the next generation of EVFs (which we may see on the NEX 7n to be announced next month) may partially mitigate some of the issues you have mentioned using your NEX cameras).
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Remo Nonaz on May 03, 2013, 04:59:03 pm
I use both (Olympus E-M5 and Nikon D800E) and while I prefer the "presence" of the OVF, I really like the ability to dial in exposure adjustment with the more-or-less WYSIWYG view of the Oly EVF, though sometimes the ability to see detail in dark shadows is a pain.

With an EVF that has the histogram right in the viewfinder, does it really matter that you can't see great detail in the shadows? If your curve is inbounds, you've got the capture. So what if you couldn't see it live? With an OVF, you may be able to see the shadow detail, but you won't know if you've captured it until after you shoot and go back to review the image.

I'm shooting a GH2 and would put its EVF up against any mid price range OVF, especially for low light because it amps up and you CAN see what's in those shadows.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on May 04, 2013, 05:32:27 am
Alf, I find my focus accuracy to be so much better with my NEX 7 vs. my Pentax K-5 (with the Katz Eye split prism screen) that I am now using all of my Pentax limited lenses almost exclusively on my NEX and will be selling my K-5 as soon as I get around to it. Possibly the next generation of EVFs (which we may see on the NEX 7n to be announced next month) may partially mitigate some of the issues you have mentioned using your NEX cameras).
ok, I was comparing with RF. Anyway the results are dependent on the user-camera combo, so its hard to generalize  (as I might have done). Thanks for sharing experiences.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on May 11, 2013, 09:03:30 pm
The small matter of metering and correct exposure is utter trivial compared to having a tool that lets you see and compose a photo.

 ??? ??? ???
Strange experiences you must have had, since I never had problems to see and compose a photo on my EVF. Moreover, I consider achieving accurate exposure a painful process with my DSLR, and metering a completely unnecesary and obsolete step in any modern photography workflow.

But the future is bright. When those kids point and shooting with their smartphones today want to get more seriously into photography, and they have to decide wether they prefer to: meter, choose exposure, click, and post-visualize vs pre-visualize and click with an EVF, the VF of the future will be chosen.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on May 13, 2013, 02:10:17 am
??? ??? ???
Strange experiences you must have had, since I never had problems to see and compose a photo on my EVF. Moreover, I consider achieving accurate exposure a painful process with my DSLR, and metering a completely unnecesary and obsolete step in any modern photography workflow.

But the future is bright. When those kids point and shooting with their smartphones today want to get more seriously into photography, and they have to decide wether they prefer to: meter, choose exposure, click, and post-visualize vs pre-visualize and click with an EVF, the VF of the future will be chosen.

No doubt that the future VF will be a form of EVF? Still we are allowed to hate todays poor implementations because they impose restrictions in creating photographs.

Please let me know when you have compared the below photographic situations between a M9 (or a RD-1) and a modern EVF such as the NEX-7:

...

Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year  :)
Title: EVF lag: how good or bad is the 32ms lag of the new Olympus VF-4?
Post by: BJL on May 13, 2013, 05:18:24 pm
On the subject of EVF lag, Olympus apparently reports a lag of 32ms for its new VF-4 accessory EVF: to quote DPReview at http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympus-pen-ep5/4
Quote
Our first impressions of the VF-4 are very positive - it gives an experience that comes remarkably close to shooting with a conventional optical finder, but with the advantage of a detailed overlay of shooting information, including such things as electronic levels and a live histogram. The display lag is minimal (Olympus claims a mere 32ms) ...
This is about one fifth or less than the reaction times reported for Olympic sprinters at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_chronometry and less than the shutter lag listed for any SLR at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag where the Nikon F6 at 37ms still edges out any DSLR. TO put it another way, it is about the lag between successive frame on NTSC TV rate of 30fps (33ms between frames) and less than the frame lag of the motion picture standard of 24fps (42ms between frames).

So to me, this 32ms sounds negligible; what do others think?
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on May 13, 2013, 05:42:30 pm
"So to me, this 32ms sounds negligible; what do others think?"

Even with my first generation G1 it's just not a real world issue. Not for me anyway.

Personally I just don't understand the view that EVF's get in the way and impose restrictions in creating photographs. It's all about visualisation and I personally have no problem visualising the image through my EVF.

I do have two very low light issues with my G1...

1. It acts like a torch shining into my eye.
2. It wont display things that are clearly visible by eye. I assume it's a DR/contrast issue.

If those two things can be solved I'd be even happier.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: NikoJorj on May 14, 2013, 04:32:01 am
Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year  :)
I didn't try a NEX, but with an Olympus EPL1 + VF2 there is no viewfinder problem for me on the snow (I can't see much on the rear screen though).

Where I find it less optimal is with big DR scenes, as wrote Michael ; the EVF shows the jpeg with crushed blacks, which is unpractical if there are significant shadows to include in the composition. This should be treated with auto-shadow lighting soon, I hope (it will make crappy jpegs of course, but should be useful for framing such scenes).

There is no such problem on a DSLR ground glass, but as Guillermo I find that not having real-time exposure feedback is a bigger one.
Could the future be the addition of a LCD HUD to the ground glass? Sounds less probable, Occam-wise.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Remo Nonaz on May 14, 2013, 09:50:36 am
I've found that with the EVF of my GH2, I can improve my action photos (probably very slightly) by framing with my right eye and watching for my shot timing with my left eye. I shoot when I see the shot I want with my left eye without worrying about what is actually showing in the EVF. You can supplement this by putting the camera in multi-shot mode and firing in bursts.

I don't know what the delay in the GH2 is. I started this practice when I had a Dimage A2; it it had a very long delay, probably over 250ms. In any event, I doubt I can respond and push a shutter is 32ms.  :D
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: GWStudioLA on May 27, 2013, 12:27:26 am
My new Fuji Pro x 1 has an electronic viewfinder (obviously) but it's super amazing.
I don't hate electronic viewfinders anymore :)
Have you tried it?
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on May 29, 2013, 05:07:32 am
Used the Epson RD-1 for a while again now. Wow, what a revelation with its super clear 1:1 finder. I can look through finder with one eye, and use my other eye for full view with zero lag. Going back to an EVF would  be like removing my glasses inside a smoke filled Lavvo being stupendously drunk and missing sleep for a few days ;D.

I still believe many of he pro-EVF havent tried good OVFs, their simply believing the EVFs are how its supposed to be.

Still don't hate the EVFs, their simply just first poor tries with lag and adding a layer so that the human brain cannot use its power to dynamically adjust to the view and see what out there. Basically their trying to fool the consumer into believing that the photographic process made by a human can be replaced by automated processes. We might end there, but that requires several magnitudes of improved local processing power. Also, that would IMO remove the joy of the creative photo process.

Sorry for being a grumpy old f*rt  ::)
Title: most of us have much OVF experience; less with EVF's
Post by: BJL on May 29, 2013, 11:09:43 am
I still believe many of he pro-EVF havent tried good OVFs, their simply believing the EVFs are how its supposed to be.
On the contrary, considering the rather high average level of age and/or experience in this forum, it seems far more likely that most of us have considerable experience with OVF's, going back to the larger ones of the manual focus era, whereas a number of the anti-EVF posters have little or no experience with the current state of the art in EVFs, or have a preference for OVF's that is based largely on familiarity and the barrier of learning how to best use a new tool.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Bob Brandoff on June 15, 2013, 05:50:13 pm

However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher..

I have to agree. I like using some very excellent vintage and soviet-era lenses (Jena, Jupiter, and Mir) with my Sony A77, as I did with the OM-D. With the Sonys focus peaking and excellent EVF I can actually shoot street photography with a degree of confidence.

Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on June 15, 2013, 06:00:10 pm
Still don't hate the EVFs, their simply just first poor tries with lag and adding a layer so that the human brain cannot use its power to dynamically adjust to the view and see what out there. Basically their trying to fool the consumer into believing that the photographic process made by a human can be replaced by automated processes.

I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

Regards
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AFairley on June 16, 2013, 12:53:13 pm
I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

Regards


+1. After you have adjusted to the technology and have developed a sense of how what you see in the EVF compares to what will be in the file, there is nothing like being able to dial in highly accurate exposure adjustments on the fly
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on June 16, 2013, 07:31:01 pm
Going back to an EVF would be like removing my glasses inside a smoke filled Lavvo being stupendously drunk and missing sleep for a few days ;D.

When I read extreme views like this I think I'm reading something from another planet, just completely removed for the experiences (and the camera gear) I'd had.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on June 20, 2013, 09:41:10 am
I have found on many pro-OVF a great interest in seeing the world through the VF as the world actually is. The point is that taking a picture is not a process intended to see the world, but a process to capture the world. And regarding capture, I find an EVF much more accurate than an OVF (realtime exposure, 100% framing, accurate focus). To see the world with an EVF you just need to put your eyes a couple of cms away from the VF.

Regards

On accuracy:

Realtime exposure: Probably. So do the EVFs have the needed dynamic range to let me see the potential of the RAW?

100% framing: In theory definitely yes. In practice I have been disappointed with all my EVFs, since this was supposed to be one of the big advantages. Seems like I have to crop / adjust as much as with my RF. Probably my own mistakes though.

Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

But again, in theory the EVFs should have an advantage in capturing the world, but todays implementations are IMO to poor. And again all this is very trivial compared to seeing, composing and creating a photo.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: scooby70 on June 22, 2013, 08:25:34 pm
On accuracy:

Realtime exposure: Probably. So do the EVFs have the needed dynamic range to let me see the potential of the RAW?

I don't know what the DR of my G1's EVF is but what I do know is that I can have an in view histogram and when taking a difficult shot to meter I'm more likely to get a good exposure first time with my G1 and its in view histogram than with my 5D. With my 5D I'll have to take the shot and then check to see if I've blown my highlights, dial in compensation as appropriate if I have and shoot again.

100% framing: In theory definitely yes. In practice I have been disappointed with all my EVFs, since this was supposed to be one of the big advantages. Seems like I have to crop / adjust as much as with my RF. Probably my own mistakes though.

Personally I don't have any issues with framing.

Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

No matter how many times I read that RF's are more accurate I simply do not believe it. A RF more accurate than focusing with an EVF and x10 zoom when you can choose and see exactly what your focusing on? Not a chance. Want to focus on someones eye at f1.4 with a RF? Difficult to not a chance. Not unless the eye is very big in your VF. With an EVF and x10 zoom you can do it and in fact you can focus on the point of an eyelash if you want or on any point along its length when that eyelash isn't even visible through your RF. Fact is (IMVHO) you can do things with an EVF that are simply impossible with a RF. Plus of course unlike a RF the EVF doesn't drift out of alignment and require fettling with a screwdriver. I sold my RF's years ago.

But again, in theory the EVFs should have an advantage in capturing the world, but todays implementations are IMO to poor. And again all this is very trivial compared to seeing, composing and creating a photo.

IMVHO my first generation MFT G1's EVF is only deficient in two main ways. Firstly in very low light, almost darkness, it fails to display what is still visible by eye. Secondly in almost darkness I find my G1 unusable as even with the EVF brightness turned down for best effect it still acts like a torch shining directly into my eye. If those two things could be fixed it'd be damn near perfect... and I've yet to see any debris or live bugs crawling around in my EVF unlike every OVF equipped SLR/DSLR I've ever owned.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on June 24, 2013, 09:11:18 am
No matter how many times I read that RF's are more accurate I simply do not believe it. A RF more accurate than focusing with an EVF and x10 zoom when you can choose and see exactly what your focusing on? Not a chance. Want to focus on someones eye at f1.4 with a RF? Difficult to not a chance. Not unless the eye is very big in your VF. With an EVF and x10 zoom you can do it and in fact you can focus on the point of an eyelash if you want or on any point along its length when that eyelash isn't even visible through your RF. Fact is (IMVHO) you can do things with an EVF that are simply impossible with a RF. Plus of course unlike a RF the EVF doesn't drift out of alignment and require fettling with a screwdriver. I sold my RF's years ago.

Thanks for your (and others) patience and well though of answers,

However on the focus I can only repeat "don't confuse me with facts, Ive made up my mind"  ;D.

So here is another "fact", or personal experience if you may "you should nearly always focus using the rangefinder, rather than Live View, with nearly every lens. That's right. Bold, italic and highlights. This startling fact is completely unexpected, utterly unintuitive, impossible to explain simply and absolutely vital.*. Please see: http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/6/leica-m240---executive-summary-final-thoughts-conclusion-is-it-a-keeper (http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/6/leica-m240---executive-summary-final-thoughts-conclusion-is-it-a-keeper)
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Jeff Kott on June 24, 2013, 01:27:56 pm
Alf,

You really feel passionately about this, so I'm hesitant to draw this out any further, but since I took the time to read your linked blog post I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway.

It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240. If you could place the area of magnified live view on the spot in your image where you wanted the center of focus, I have no doubt that magnified live view would be as accurate or more accurate than the range finder mechanism.
Title: The M (and D800) have the lens stopped down during EVF focusing
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 02:36:49 pm
It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240.
Agreed, plus another point that Sean Reid and I have mentioned: the way that live view works on the Leica M (and on the Nikon D800) means that reviewers like Tim Ashley are doing their EVF manual focusing with the lenses stopped down to taking aperture, whereas manual focusing is usually more accurate when done with the lens wide open, to make OOF focus effects clearer --- as it is in all other live view systems except those two AFAIK, and as it is with manual focusing on SLR's. Surely most of us have experienced how much easier manual focusing on an SLR is with a bright (low minimum f-stop) lens, where the subject pops in and out of focus dramatically as the focus is adjusted.

I quote and link to Sean Reid's comments on that in this related thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79548.msg641172#msg641172

As both Sean Reid and Tim Ashley have noted, the exception is the case where the lens has substantial focus shift when stopping down: then the better approach is live view MF stopped down to the taking aperture, which will be better than with the rangefinder, which cannot compensate for that focus shift.
Title: Re: The M (and D800) have the lens stopped down during EVF focusing
Post by: Jeff Kott on June 24, 2013, 06:58:47 pm

As both Sean Reid and Tim Ashley have noted, the exception is the case where the lens has substantial focus shift when stopping down: then the better approach is live view MF stopped down to the taking aperture, which will be better than with the rangefinder, which cannot compensate for that focus shift.

I think if you have a fast lens with significant focus shift, you can eliminate the bulk of the focus shift by stopping down about 2 stops from max aperture. So, If you've got a 1.4 lens stop down to 2.8 (or with an F 2.0 lens to F 4), focus at that aperture and then stop down further if desired for your shot. This would be handy if for example you wanted to shoot at F 5.6 or smaller since you would find EVF focusing easier at F 2.8 or F 4 than at the smaller apertures with more DOF.
Title: Re: The M (and D800) have the lens stopped down during EVF focusing
Post by: BJL on June 24, 2013, 09:41:23 pm
I think if you have a fast lens with significant focus shift, you can eliminate the bulk of the focus shift by stopping down about 2 stops from max aperture. So, If you've got a 1.4 lens stop down to 2.8 (or with an F 2.0 lens to F 4), focus at that aperture and then stop down further if desired for your shot.
Yes, that is probably better; sorry for oversimplifying. It would be nice for the camera's software to offer automation of such a procedure!
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on June 26, 2013, 07:48:28 am
Alf,

You really feel passionately about this, so I'm hesitant to draw this out any further, but since I took the time to read your linked blog post I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway.

It seems to me the reason, if any, that RF focusing may be more accurate than live view on the M 240 as indicated in the blog you linked to is only because magnified live view on the M 240 is only in the center area and the area of magnification can not be moved around like on many other cameras with an EVF. So rather than see this as a shortfall of focusing with EVF's in general, I see this as merely a knock on Leica's implementation of live view on the M 240. If you could place the area of magnified live view on the spot in your image where you wanted the center of focus, I have no doubt that magnified live view would be as accurate or more accurate than the range finder mechanism.


The question is whether you believe focus is more accurate with RF (focusing in the middle). You can then knock on Leica implementation to argue missing functionality for not being able to move focus, but this is sidestepping the discussion on whether RF is more accurate than EVF (for wides -> short tele).

Its quite easy to test for yourself. I have done this in real life photography. *For me* the RF always beats the EVFs I have tried in terms of placing the focus plane where I want it by MF.  And particular for situations where you have limited time to respond. Even for tripod work I prefer the RF, but the difference is less here since I have more time to endlessly adjust MF by EVF. I first experienced this when I was testing the performance of some of my Leica M lenses on my mirror less. I was really surprised how much easier it was to achieve accurate focus by RF.

But this is of course somewhat depending on persons, so please let me know your experiences comparing focus by RF to EVF (side by side).

Btw: I wish those answering could state if they actually have tried using both EVF and OVF, and for this part of the discussion RF OVF  ;). For the record, I have not used the Fuji X-s nor the M(240), but owned and used the GH-2, NEX-5n / 7, D700, RD-1 and M9. I should also say that I dont use longer lenses than 135mm.


Here is anther piece of information, using Leica lenses on the X-E1 (if you read further down you will a see a balanced conclusion).

"Putting Things in Focus

This is the crux of the matter: how to tell when you are in focus? With a Leica M camera you simply align the split image in the viewfinder and trust to luck that the system is accurately adjusted. It works well most of the time and is unlikely to give problems, especially with 50mm and wider lenses. It is possible to achieve accurate focus very quickly and some Leica fans reckon they can beat an autofocus lens any time. In many ways it is still the ideal way of setting focus manually, despite all the technical advances we have seen in the past twenty years.

After the week with the X-E1 and the Leica lenses I returned to the M9 to do some comparison shots and immediately felt back at home with the split-image rangefinder. If I am honest, it is a tad quicker to find focus than with Fujifilm’s EVF. The Fujifilm, though, is satisfying and accurate; it just goes about things in a different way.


Read more: http://www.the.me/using-the-fujifilm-x-e1-with-leica-lenses-a-massive-dose-of-m-magic-at-a-fraction-of-the-price/#ixzz2XJtW0HxD"
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on June 26, 2013, 09:00:35 am
Accurate focus: No, in fact on focal lengths 90mm and below the RF is more accurate than EVF on MF. As proven by M users that have both. I also prefer the focus by RF on a M9 over the EVF on NEX-7, and have much better accuracy.

Even if that were true, I don't even consider a RF camera. By no means I am willing to use a camera that can't show me the exact framing and perspective of the image I'm just about to capture, that is far more important to me than a little plus in focus accuracy. My claim was vs the OVF found on DSLR cameras, which I consider the only real option to EVF mirrorless cameras. And for several reasons for amateur photography I am with the EVF.
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: AlfSollund on July 05, 2013, 07:22:35 am
Even if that were true, I don't even consider a RF camera. By no means I am willing to use a camera that can't show me the exact framing and perspective of the image I'm just about to capture, that is far more important to me than a little plus in focus accuracy. My claim was vs the OVF found on DSLR cameras, which I consider the only real option to EVF mirrorless cameras. And for several reasons for amateur photography I am with the EVF.


With all due respect, what you consider as "the only real option" hardly counts as the limitation when discussing pros and cons of finders. I can only say that I consider all finders found on any camera as real options for photographers in a OVF/EVF discussion.

So how long have you used a RF (along with a EVF / OVF DSLR) before deciding its not a real option? Its cons are as you say the framing (that I correct post) and not being accurate in perspective, being worse for close objects. Again my belief is that you and other pro-EVF folks have never used a good SLR OVF (not the crappy crop DSLR) or a RF so you believe an EVF is all that is.

I can only (again) state that I prefer to see what I shoot rather than have 100% accurate framing / perspective.  The EVFs are by far to dark when its bright, and to bright when its dark. Yesterday I was out fishing along with a friend from Kayak. We tried using my NEX-7 while fishing, but the combination of sun (24/7 here now) and water reflections made the photography close to guesswork about framing and composing. The M9 was of course flawless since the brain compensates for chancing light conditions in real time as opposed to the EVF that hinders exactly that  ;), and my friends mid-range Canon DSLR much better than the NEX for this given scenario.

I assume we just have to disagree  ;) Thanks for all great input!
Title: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: petermfiore on July 05, 2013, 09:26:00 am
Choice is a wonderful thing.

Peter
Title: Re: Re: Re: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on July 08, 2013, 04:10:02 am
Again my belief is that you and other pro-EVF folks have never used a good SLR OVF (not the crappy crop DSLR) or a RF so you believe an EVF is all that is.

And in my case you are totally right, but going back to analog is not an option for me, and neither is considering an expensive and bulky top FF DSLR with a relatively good OVF (I'm an amateur photographer and I want to find a balance between my gear investment and usage), that is why I'm best served with a 100% EVF on a mirrorless body. And regarding RF, the framing and perspective issue is basic to me.

I have recently known that Nikon DSLR's Live View doesn't even provide a realtime exposure display, which any mirrorless, compact camera or smartphone does. Really amazing.