Which is better?

[nosredla]

a) EVF/Live View or OVF?
 Auto Focus or Manual Focus?

[michael]

You left out rangefinder and fixed focus.

Please don't waste our time with inanities.

Michael

[nosredla]

You left out rangefinder and fixed focus.

Please don't waste our time with inanities.

Michael

Michael, perhaps you have had a bad day. When I chatted with you recently at your gallery you were more pleasant.

When I revived my interest in photography recently after many years, I chose a camera with EVF and continuous Live View because I thought with AF the OVF would be unimportant and that EVF would allow me to avoid mirror and prism. However I was under the impression that most photographers preferred an optical viewfinder and would disagree with me.

Recently I have noted your own comments that you rely more on AF, and other contributor's comments that Live View with magnification is better for focus than OVF. This, to my surprise, seemed to confirm my own thoughts.

But, in the last couple of days I had the opportunity to play briefly with a DSLR with OVF and was very surprised how much I enjoyed the experience. This made me doubt my original choice.

This conflict made be interested in what others on this site might contribute to a discussion - hence my questions.

When asking my question, I did not think a long preamble would be necessary.

Perhaps now I might have the benefit of your opinion, and those of others?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I think in both cases the answer depends heavily on the quality of the particular equipment. For example, as a long-time film SLR user, I much prefer a good optical viewfinder, and the one on mt Canon 5D is excellent IMHO. But my Canon G10 has a horrible OVF, so I have had to get used to using live view on it.

As for AF vs. manual focus, I use (and prefer) AF most of the time, because both cameras do a pretty good job of it. With the 5D, manual focus is preferable in some situations (such as macro shots). AF on my G10 usually focuses on the wrong thing at close ranges, so I also use MF there, even though it is awkward.

It all depends on the equipment and on your own habits and references. So go out and try several of each kind to see what suits your needs best.

[Toby1014]

a) EVF/Live View or OVF?
 Auto Focus or Manual Focus?

I have no clue what EVF and OVF is, could someone explain ?

[DarkPenguin]

I have no clue what EVF and OVF is, could someone explain ?

EVF == electronic viewfinder.  OVF == optical viewfinder.

[dalethorn]

a) EVF/Live View or OVF?
 Auto Focus or Manual Focus?

If you have plenty of time to compose a shot, you'll have the luxury of choosing whatever looks best to you. But when you have to move quickly, you'll find your choices narrow quite a bit.

[michael]

Sorry for my abrupt response, but this is the type of question that simply has no answer. The variations exist because they are each appropriate for different people in different circumstances. It's like asking is gas better than diesel, or is a manual transmission better than an automatic.

Asking people for their opinion on topics like this without specifying anything about the type of photography that you do opens the floodgates to flame wars, which I won't tolerate here.

Your question seemed provocative and that's why I came down hard on it.

Michael

[Jeremy Payne]

Asking people for their opinion on topics like this without specifying anything about the type of photography that you do opens the floodgates to flame wars

 ... it did sound a bit like walking into a bar and shouting:

"Tastes great?  Or Less filing?"

[tonysmith]

I use a Sony DSC R1 which three or four years ago was considered a somewhat innovative camera but is now technologically a bit dated.

It has an articulated LCD screen, and where an optical viewfinder would normally be found it has an electronic viewfinder. Both of these show a live view all the time. This has worked well for me because I rely almost entirely on autofocus, therefore don't need the viewfinder for focussing. I like that I can immediately and continuously see the effect of changes to all exposure settings.

However, I find it extremely difficult to focus closely, e.g. for macro work. The LCD and EVF simply do not show enough detail to be sure of the focus, whether manual or automatic. This is the only time I wish I had an optical viewfinder, which I assume would be much better.

Another tradeoff may be that an electronic viewfinder does not currently give the same feeling of "involvement" in the subject as an optical viewfinder. This is one of the advantages claimed for rangefinder cameras, and may explain your enjoyment of the optical viewfinder of the DSLR you played with.

From what I read about the Panasonic G1 MFT camera, it would seem technology is on the way to solving the above issues. If that is true, perhaps eventually the DSLR will be overtaken by the combination of EVF and AF, and mirror and prism will be considered an unnecessary incumbrance?

[Bobtrips]

I use a Sony DSC R1 which three or four years ago was considered a somewhat innovative camera but is now technologically a bit dated.

It has an articulated LCD screen, and where an optical viewfinder would normally be found it has an electronic viewfinder. Both of these show a live view all the time. This has worked well for me because I rely almost entirely on autofocus, therefore don't need the viewfinder for focussing. I like that I can immediately and continuously see the effect of changes to all exposure settings.

However, I find it extremely difficult to focus closely, e.g. for macro work. The LCD and EVF simply do not show enough detail to be sure of the focus, whether manual or automatic. This is the only time I wish I had an optical viewfinder, which I assume would be much better.

Another tradeoff may be that an electronic viewfinder does not currently give the same feeling of "involvement" in the subject as an optical viewfinder. This is one of the advantages claimed for rangefinder cameras, and may explain your enjoyment of the optical viewfinder of the DSLR you played with.

From what I read about the Panasonic G1 MFT camera, it would seem technology is on the way to solving the above issues. If that is true, perhaps eventually the DSLR will be overtaken by the combination of EVF and AF, and mirror and prism will be considered an unnecessary incumbrance?

I've shot with both EVF "superzooms" and a OVF dSLR.  I'd like an APS sensor EVF (EVIL) camera but no one yet makes one.  

For my type of shooting a live histogram is very useful.  Shoot/check the histogram/re-shoot if necessary can be a pain.  So I end up bracketing a lot.

(Why isn't there a "shoot to the right, no spike" metering setting?  Why can't I choose to never blow out the sky?)  

Macro/studio shooting might be better done with an EVF (or at least with live view).   Since time is not of the essence in many of these shots one can magnify a portion of the frame for really critical focusing.  And one can work from a more comfortable position by not having to stoop to use the viewfinder.   In a studio setting one can feed the output to a monitor (or multiple monitors) to allow easy setups.  

EVFs are (likely) better for dim light photography.  They can switch to B&W and boost the gain to let one see into very low light scenes.  Sure, they may get grainy, but that doesn't effect framing and focus.  And you can actually see DOF through a stopped down lens.

EVFs might not be best for sports/lots of motion photography.  But there are work-arounds and EVF performance will likely improve.  My guess is that OVFs will go away some time in the not too distant future.  Takes mirror-slap out of the picture, reduces weight, likely to reduce camera cost....

[dalethorn]

From what I read about the Panasonic G1 MFT camera, it would seem technology is on the way to solving the above issues. If that is true, perhaps eventually the DSLR will be overtaken by the combination of EVF and AF, and mirror and prism will be considered an unnecessary incumbrance?

Generally with moving parts there is greater cost and reliability issues. But there may be technological improvements available that people haven't considered. It was thought at one time that making ever-larger mirrors for telescopes, beyond 5-6 meters, would be impractical. Now there are segmented mirrors and computer corrections for those. Seems to me there are some real opportunities here - not just "here's the OVF, and there's the EVF", but ways to hybrid them.