Optical Viewfinder RIP

[amsp]

There is something absolutely magical about the 6x6 cm image which appears when you pop-up the WLF on a Rollei or a Hasselblad or any MF SLR. I felt this very strongly the first time I used one (an old Pilot 6, quickly followed by a Yashica 124). The fact that the image is reversed left-to-right strangely adds to the effect. We gaze enraptured at this little square picture which represents our chunk of reality, and which we can capture, fix, make permanent at the touch of a button. The whole experience is nothing like peering through a 35mm viewfinder (or any prism, for that matter). And when you have a good lens and screen (an acutematte on a Hasselblad) the quality of the image is superb. Why on earth would I want to trade that for an EVF?

John

I agree, the image you see in the Hasselblad WLF feels almost more real than reality, if that makes any sense. Very unique.

[Anders_HK]

I agree, the image you see in the Hasselblad WLF feels almost more real than reality, if that makes any sense. Very unique.

+1 that goes for my Hy6 as well.

In similar ways any bright viewfinder. Staring into a Linhof 612 gives same experience for pano, 4x5 Maxwell Hi-Lux groundglass etc...

Best regards
Anders

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

For sports photography you need to predict action. In film time I was shooting show jumping (equestrian sport). What I found was that shooting at 4-5 FPS essentially made me missing action. I needed to predict action and press the shutter before the horse reached the best position. Significant view finder lag may be problematic. I don't know what viewfinder lag the best systems now have, but I presume it will improve over time.

Best regards
Erik

As soon as the pipeline (reset->expose->read->render) becomes fast enough, the "pre-roll" option could become a viable tool.

Imagine if a single shutter press would record three images taken in the period of 1/2 second /before/ the shutter button was pressed, as well as (nominally) 2 more in the 1/4 second following?  You could get one of the moments you just missed this way.  

My biggest problem with the EVF is the moments that it omits by necessity.  You are getting only a fraction of the events that are occurring continuously in real-time.

[BillOConnor]

What you are saying may be true, probably is, but they have a long ways to go when working in bright sunlight, or bright sunlight mixed with shade. Even in contrasty indoor light, they're awful. It will all depend on how much money is spent on their R&D.

[BJL]

... they have a long ways to go when working in bright sunlight, or bright sunlight mixed with shade.

The OP of this thread is about a panel for one-eyed "peep-hole" EVFs, not a rear-screen LCD, so there is no more problem with bright sunlight than an OVF. At the other lighting extreme, the option of amplifying the image in low light can give you more to work with than a dim OVF image, and for the same reason, DOF preview has far more chance of being useful than stop-down DOF preview with an OVF.

[NikoJorj]

The OP of this thread is about a panel for one-eyed "peep-hole" EVFs, not a rear-screen LCD, so there is no more problem with bright sunlight than an OVF.

I would respectfully disagree here.
The older EVF of the Konica Dimage A1 was absolutely unreadable on sunny snow, too dim (had to wait about 15s that my eyes accomodated to the darkness, not very practical for the decisive moment), and my olympus VF2 lacks still a bit of brightness in these conditions (makes the image appear as underexposed when it is not).
Edit : In comparison, the keyhole of the older Olympus C2500L (a true SLR, but the viewfinder was at scale with the tiny sensor) was much more usable than the A1 in even moderate sunlight.
But I may have already had a bias towards grond glasses...

[Justin Berman]

 

Actually going from 2:1, 16x9, 24x36 to 645 in my view of the electronic world, 24x36 is the medium format and probably the most hobbled and less creative format of all.

I like a 4:3 format, kind of like 16x9, love 2 to 1 and 24x36 falls somewhere in between.

I'm sorry, I gotta make sure you mean what you said here.

16x9 is nothing like 4:3 the closest you get with 4:3 is 16x12. Based on what you said, you probably like 16x9 because it is quite close to a 2:1 ratio.

Otherwise I am missing something and clueless.

Cheers!