Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on March 26, 2016, 12:20:25 am
-
team,
I keep reading praise about the latest generation of EVFs, so I tried those from Sony (a7rII and 6300), Olympus (Pen-F) and Fuji (x-T1 I guess) and... I don't know what to say...
In my book the shooting experience remains just awful compared to that of a good OVF.
Yes, it is usable, but I am at a loss why so many folks are willing to go for those with their current specs.
I must getting old real quick. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...
for example I do not aim for any fast action or remote objects/wildlife with long teles = I just frame and evaluate exposure with EVF (hand held operation)... as for the colors or the scene in general I prefer to see that with my own eyes, not distorted by any VF (no action - no danger to miss the moment)... plus I am not willing to forego EFCS (hand held operation) for a good chance of shutter shock & mirror slap in the range of exposure times that I use often or forego better sensor saturation to move out that time zone...
-
team,
I keep reading praise about the latest generation of EVFs, so I tried those from Sony (a7rII and 6300), Olympus (Pen-F) and Fuji (x-T1 I guess) and... I don't know what to say...
In my book the shooting experience remains just awful compared to that of a good OVF.
Yes, it is usable, but I am at a loss why so many folks are willing to go for those with their current specs.
I must getting old real quick. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
It is awefull. The SL evf is tad better but I can't imagine real OVF dying anytime soon. Anyway, technogearheads will always have the last word on forums because forums are their main occupation. For me, my Nikon dslrs are the pinnacle of shooting exprience. (Should be the same for canon/pentax shooters).
PS: I'm far to be old ^^ and say that.
-
My two work-horse cameras are Hasselblad H3D31ii and Sony A7Rii.
Yes, the optical viewfinder on the Hasselblad is better in brightly-lit situations. Outdoors in the sunshine or in the studio with bright modelling lights it yet to be beaten.
But shooting star trails, any manual focus situation, or shooting in a dim studio (eg lit by flash, but where the modelling lights are non-existant) I find the EVF better.
It's not as detailed or as responsive, but it is certainly brighter, provides a magnified view for focussing, zebras for exposure, peaking, etc..
And there's PLENTY of scope for improving EVFs in future generations of tech. The optical viewfinder is never going to improve much, after more than a century of work it is now constrained by the physics. A f/2.8 lens on the Hasselblad gives as bright a viewfinder image as it gives. An f/2.8 lens on the Sony can have the amplification turned up so you can almost see in the dark.
No mirror to slap, electronic first curtain to remove shutter shock, and even better what-you-see-is-what-you-get than a SLR.
I'm starting to prefer the EVF, on balance. Not that it's perfect. God knows it could do with higher resolution and higher refresh rate. But that'll come.
Cheers, Hywel
-
I have Canon DSLRs and lenses and a Fuji X-T1 and lenses. Honestly, I don't miss the OVF when I use the Fuji. There are many good things about the EVF in the Fuji.
- exposure preview
- set it up to shoot RAW and JPEG and use a B&W setting for the JPEG and see B&W in the EVF - talk about previsualization!
- I love low light and nighttime photography - the EVF excels here
- I don't have to use mirror lockup to reduce mirror slap vibration for landscape shots
Are EVFs perfect? Hell no.
Will they get better? For sure. We're already seeing higher res EVFs and MUCH faster refresh rates.
Will OVFs disappear? Unlikely.
Heck I have friends who still use 8x10 view cameras and film. SLRs didn't drive view cameras into oblivion and EVFs won't make OVFs go away.
-
Being 80 this year, and having poor vision in one eye, EVF is a boon. I grew up with LF, my first camera was a speed graphic, etc etc. EVF is better for me than OVF, but that is because the brightness of it stays pretty much under control. I can see where OVF is a better choice for fast moving or quick shooting, but for landscapes, it really helps me. 8)
-
For me EVFs are Da Bomb. The purpose of a camera ultimately isn't to relish the glorious view through one's direct VF (rangefinders) or mirror/pentaprism system. It's to take photos. IMO EVFs give you an abstracted view closer to that of photographs than RF or SLR cameras. And this is without even considering benefits like in-finder magnification & manual focusing precision along with low-light amplification. For me it's a wipe the floor level EVF rout.
-Dave-
-
Personally I wouldn't miss OVFs at all... That being said, the one from the Leica S is pretty amazing...
-
OVF's are generally (low light would be a case when they're not) better for evaluating the scene. EVF's are always better for evaluating capture (exposure, focus, white balance).
It depends on how well you feel at evaluating the scene on a EVF, and how well you feel at evaluating the capture on a OVF that you'll prefer one to the other.
An absolute truth is that EVF's are improving at evaluating scenes, while OVF's are not improving at evaluating capture. This means there will eventually come a day for everyone when EVF's will be preferred. This happened to me with the second generation of EVF's (around 3 years ago).
Exposure OVF vs EVF:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/expometer.jpg)
Low light using EVF (OVF was useless):
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/mz.jpg)
Regards
Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk
-
I'm a big fan of EVF and my shooting companion hates them. But we don't hesitate to use either.
One thing I've recently noticed is I can frame and autofocus the X-T1 with a 12 stop ND filter attached. The downside is it's a variable, and because the viewfinder doesn't go dark I can't tell which way I'm rotating it without coming round the front of the lens and looking at it.
-
In my book the shooting experience remains just awful compared to that of a good OVF.
I wonder what percentage of cameras in use have a good OVF?
Personally and for me EVF's are the way forward. I see the advantages for me and I'd only go back with a gun to my head.
-
I wonder what percentage of cameras in use have a good OVF?
Personally and for me EVF's are the way forward. I see the advantages for me and I'd only go back with a gun to my head.
I found OVF to degrade during the digital everything AF age. Look at the beautiful bright viewfinder of the old Olympus cameras and compare to today's dark tunnels.
I love EVF for overall image evaluation and focusing...they are miles ahead of the OVF in these aspects. Trying to nail manual focus with an OVF is a pain...turns into a pleasure with EVF.
-
I found OVF to degrade during the digital everything AF age. Look at the beautiful bright viewfinder of the old Olympus cameras and compare to today's dark tunnels.
I love EVF for overall image evaluation and focusing...they are miles ahead of the OVF in these aspects. Trying to nail manual focus with an OVF is a pain...turns into a pleasure with EVF.
I think the best OVF I ever had was not on a film camera but on my 5D but one thing that annoyed me just about every single time I used it was the crud I could see through it, not easily cleanable either.
-
I have both a D800 and a Panasonic GX8 (two bodies) and I hardly ever use the D800 anymore. I mostly shoot street or "opportunistic" photos, where you're out cruising around and see something you want to shoot. (Could even be a sunset.) I look at it with my eyes, which are better than an optical viewfinder, and then I just use the EVF to frame it. I'm not really doing much evaluation through the viewfinder itself, and I don't using an OVF either. The viewfinders on the GX8s are pretty good, not really what you'd call tunnel vision. Ymmv.
-
- exposure preview
- set it up to shoot RAW and JPEG and use a B&W setting for the JPEG and see B&W in the EVF - talk about previsualization!
- I love low light and nighttime photography - the EVF excels here
- I don't have to use mirror lockup to reduce mirror slap vibration for landscape shots
I'm currently reviewing a Fuji for my blog - it's my first shooting experience with EVF's - and would agree with you 100% about the benefits.
No, definitely not perfect, but then neither is an OVF.
Shooting in B&W with he EVF set to preview the exposure is a real eye opener and great fun and I also find the focus aids very useful.
-
. . . In my book the shooting experience remains just awful compared to that of a good OVF.
To make this more than a troll post to stir up EVF fanboys, can you specify the disadvantages that you experienced with these EVFs, and in comparison to which OVFs?
-
I first went EVF when the Sony A99 came out. Before that I was shooting a Sony a900, Mamiya 7II and a Toyo 4x5. I almost returned the camera after a week of use because I didn't like the EVF. But I gave it another week and fell in love with the EVF. I don't think I could ever go back to a OVF!
Jay
-
I have both a D800 and a Panasonic GX8 (two bodies) and I hardly ever use the D800 anymore. I mostly shoot street or "opportunistic" photos, where you're out cruising around and see something you want to shoot. (Could even be a sunset.) I look at it with my eyes, which are better than an optical viewfinder, and then I just use the EVF to frame it. I'm not really doing much evaluation through the viewfinder itself, and I don't using an OVF either. The viewfinders on the GX8s are pretty good, not really what you'd call tunnel vision. Ymmv.
I agree with this. For example, I've never understood the worries about colour rendition of EVFs vs OVFs. The only colour that matters to me is what is in the image file. If the EVF or OVF biases the colour, can't you just look at the scene with your naked eye. To me, the viewfinder is for framing, and it could be B&W for all I care. Obviously, many other people work differently.
Also, an EVF should be an easy way for all cameras to have 100% viewfinder coverage, but I have an old camcorder whose coverage is only about 85% when used in stills mode. What a bizarre design choice, I've always thought.
-
To make this more than a troll post to stir up EVF fanboys, can you specify the disadvantages that you experienced with these EVFs, and in comparison to which OVFs?
I am fully aware of the advantages of EVFs, that is not the point.
I just hate looking at the world through them, that's what I mean by shooting experience.
There is no doubt that OVF are a dying breed, but I just feel that way too many photographers give the current generation a pass on the shooting experience aspect in exchange for the value they deliver. Considering that there will soon be no alternative, I am just hoping to see photographers demand a little bit more from our hardware providers. I haven't had the chance to shoot with a Leica SL, I hear it is better.
This post shouldn't be read as saying "my OVF is better than your EVF", it says "my future EVF isn't good enough and I am sad about this".
The OVFs I compare them too are D810, D750 and D5 very recently.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree the world looks "better" through an OVF, and this is no surprise because it's almost like looking to the world without a camera in front of your face (which is even better ;) )
But for taking a photograph an EVF can do some things an OVF can't and vice versa. But for manual focus (which I do a lot of) an EVF with magnified view I think is superior to even the best OVF. On the other hand for fast action shooting an OVF can't be beat. That's why I have (and still use) both.
For me current EVF's are good enough to not have to feel the same sadness you do, but like you I like to see them getting better over time.
-
I just hate looking at the world through them, that's what I mean by shooting experience.
Bernard my experience has just been the opposite. I don't look through a VF to enjoy the world, to do that I don't even need a camera. I do it to frame (100% coverage is very welcome), to focus (zoom and focus peaking are welcome again), to decide the best exposure (highlight warnings are a blessing, even if they are not RAW related), and when I am interested in the JPEG I can pre-check WB with failrly good accuracy.
My experience with DSLR's has always been that clicking didn't mean the certainty of having a good capture. I had to iterate to optimise exposure and JPEG white balance. Some will say that is because I am not skilled at exposure metering; even if that could be true (I disagree), the truth is also that now I really enjoy shooting, and iterations and looking at the back LCD have come to an end.
Regards
-
Is there a typo in the above?
Not that I could find, but I should have written "current generation of EVF" to be clear.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Having done a lot of stitching for years, I am fully aware that viewfinders are not always needed to compose.
But my exprerience is that there are many cases, in particular when dealing with people, where viewing at the moment of capture is an essential dimension for me, a dimension that I find much more important than exposure simulation. I have frankly never found exposure to be a particularly problematic aspect of photography these past years. I can pretty much anticipate how my D810 will expose and compensate in a split second so as to get within 1/2 stop most of the time.
Anyway, maybe it's just me, I am not trying to convince anyone and I am again not trying to deny the value of EVFs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I've read it yet again and it still doesn't make sense, at least to me. Should their read they?
Ah yes, indeed, sorry. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I much prefer seeing the world through a Hasselblad 500 viewfinder. Things...just look...right. Hard to express it. I see the world the way my eyes see it, PLUS the depth of field. I don't know...I love it. Nothing compares that's out there today. Then again...Being able to see a magnified focus in my VF, being able to see where my white clips, being able to see and focus even when it's dark or when I am using a lens at F/5.6 or F/8. Also... if I use an infrared filter I can still see...AND focus accurately. The EVF in the E-M1 to me crossed the "good enough" mark. Yeah its like watching TV...but ... I like my images coming out of these cameras better than I do coming out of old boxes with a great physical view. Eye candy doesn't make pictures. It used to be both back in the day...but unfortunately time has moved on.
-
My experience with DSLR's has always been that clicking didn't mean the certainty of having a good capture. I had to iterate to optimise exposure and JPEG white balance. Some will say that is because I am not skilled at exposure metering; even if that could be true (I disagree), the truth is also that now I really enjoy shooting, and iterations and looking at the back LCD have come to an end.
Regards
Yep...a whole generation of photographers learned to constantly chimp each image to ensure they got the shot. I too have dramatically reduced the times I will review an image on the rear LCD.
-
Although the end product will be a color RAW file I very much prefer using my EVF in B/W mode. Since B/W is directly related to ‘luminance’ with this I’m getting the best feedback on my exposure (supported by the histogram). Bright colors can be misleading for balancing your exposure. I also get a somewhat better idea of what’s sharp in the image and what not.
It took me a while to get comfortable with the B/W finder and several times I wanted to get back to a color finder but in the end I prefer it.
Soooo, I prefer to have an EVF.
-
It is all personal choice. I have quickly adapted to EVFs, the latest generation ones are really good. And I really appreciate the fact that with an EVF, I can almost see in the dark.
-
Although the end product will be a color RAW file I very much prefer using my EVF in B/W mode. Since B/W is directly related to ‘luminance’ with this I’m getting the best feedback on my exposure (supported by the histogram). Bright colors can be misleading for balancing your exposure. I also get a somewhat better idea of what’s sharp in the image and what not.
Interesting. Now I personnally feel that if I shoot for color images, the colors of the elements in the scene are a key contributor to composition, especially for PJ kind of work where things move in the scene and the balance can change in a fraction of a second. I would be missing something by not seeing in color in my finder.
I guess you don't do this kind of images?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What i would like is a choice to use a very good OVF + non translucent mirror made for manual focus.
So in fact the best possible OVF like in the old Nikon F3 days.
The OVF of the D810 is not as good as the one in my F100 and that one is not as good as the High eyepoint F3 viewfinder.
-
All EVFs I have tried are awfull. Others might like them, that doesn't improve my user experience. They're to dark when its bright, and to bright when its semi-dark. When its really dark their completely useless. For street I find the magnifier option impossible to use for MF. Most are overloaded with information not needed to compose a great photo. In fact all information except the ability to frame, MF, see exposure time and to see exactly the same as without finder are wasted. Again that's me.
To be honest I haven't used the very last ones, but my expectations are on pair with hoping for peace worldwide in our time.
But not all OVFs are the same as one might deduce from this discussion. The old SLRs had great OVFs, most of the current DSLR less so. But the RF OVF IMO beats all other finders for 50mm and downwards. They are not great for exact framing on tripod work, but then I use LV.
-
I still enjoy using film SLRs. The Contax Aria has a wonderful VF: big view, near-perfect combo of brightness & contrast, easy manual focusing. It's a shame the camera came out near the end of Kyocera-era Contax rather than ~5 years earlier. Then there's Nikon's F3HP…a pleasure to compose with.
I still enjoy using rangefinders too, film and electronic. It's particularly handy to see a bit outside the frame with most focal lengths, something you can't do with an SLR or EVF.
For me modern tech cameras are a different thing, and EVFs are integral parts of that thing.
-Dave-
-
All EVFs I have tried are awfull. Others might like them, that doesn't improve my user experience. They're to dark when its bright, and to bright when its semi-dark. When its really dark their completely useless. For street I find the magnifier option impossible to use for MF. Most are overloaded with information not needed to compose a great photo. In fact all information except the ability to frame, MF, see exposure time and to see exactly the same as without finder are wasted. Again that's me.
To be honest I haven't used the very last ones,
Well, on the last point - there you go then, it's a bit like me saying OVF's are awful because all I've ever used is a Kodak Instamatic.
On the light / near dark / dark comments... What will you see through an OVF (even a very good one) when it's really dark? You'll see less than you can by eye but with some EVF equipped cameras you can see much more than you can by eye never mind what you'll see through an OVF. The downside is that your night vision may be ruined but that's a price some will be willing to pay to see in the dark better than they can by unaided eye.
I find your comments on EVF's being overloaded with information a bit strange but maybe you haven't realised that cameras may allow you to customise what's displayed and if they do you can just trim the info down. Simples.
We can make our own mind up what suits us best but I think going off half cock and saying the tech is awful when you haven't tried the cutting edge stuff or tried to configure the kit for best effect is poor going.
-
It's particularly handy to see a bit outside the frame with most focal lengths, something you can't do with an SLR or EVF.
The "frame" in digital is more flexible than ever. As long as the capture can be cropped, you could also use a shorter focal length than desired and crop the inner part. Of course this means wasting a part of your sensor (people cropping in pp do this continuosuly) and lens (people using FF glass on APS sensors do this everytime) resolution, and having to choose a different focal length that desired, but the functionality you like is there. The crop could be performed on the RAW data to save storage space, or just via metadata so that you could "recover" a part of the lost borders if needed.
In addition to that, an EVF could make things even easier by painting the inner frame for the final FOV of your choice, perhaps shading a bit the outer areas that will be lost, etc...
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXEyqGOsiRSBV5oO6B-73WEQ4bXtdWOMMQ87eXgDt5nk9FXlIAOA)
Regards.
-
In addition to that, an EVF could make things even easier by painting the inner frame for the final FOV of your choice, perhaps shading a bit the outer areas that will be lost, etc...
This is already possible with many cameras that provide crop factors. Some use the OVF LCD/OLED to block out the outside area, others provide lines to guide you. This was available already in the Nikon D2x more than 10 years ago, so it's nothing new. The crops happen in RAW as well, so you get a smaller file.
Personally I would make the EVF pop up inside the OVF, much like you can switch in the Fuji X-Pro and some other models. This way you will get both solutions when you need them, and it wouldn't require much additional space. One could place the EVF on a sliding part beside the current internal LCD/focusing screen mounting and let them slide back and forth when switching between modes. You do compromise on camera size, but then again many mirrorless cameras aren't that small to begin with.
-
Personally I would make the EVF pop up inside the OVF, much like you can switch in the Fuji X-Pro and some other models. This way you will get both solutions when you need them, and it wouldn't require much additional space. One could place the EVF on a sliding part beside the current internal LCD/focusing screen mounting and let them slide back and forth when switching between modes. You do compromise on camera size, but then again many mirrorless cameras aren't that small to begin with.
Nonsense redundancy. If EVF's become better and better no need to pay for two systems adding complexity. Moreover if the OVF is like in the Fujis you get parallax error, if it's a DSLR you get a mirror with all its disadvantages.
Regards
Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk
-
OVF is better for very fast action. You will always have lag with an EVF because electrical signals travel slower than light (on top of having to process them). But the biggest advantage of switching to OVF when needed is in battery savings.
-
OVF is better for very fast action. You will always have lag with an EVF because electrical signals travel slower than light (on top of having to process them).
Indeed, electric signals in copper wire travel at a sluggish one third the speed of light, so it can take them as much as one microsecond to traverse the distances within a camera.
Practically, lag with EVFs has been a significant issue with fast changing scenes, but this is approaching irrelevance, if not already insignificant for the best recent EVFs. Also, cameras with reflex mirrors have a lag due to having to flip the mirror away [ask any rangefinder enthusiast!], and overall lag comparisons have to compare such competing factors when assessing the gap between the time when the ideal scene is in front of the camera and the time when the exposure occurs.
For example, I have seen lag measurements of 25ms for the (2014) Sony A77 Mark II, and 29ms for the (2013) Olympus EM1, both less than the lowest shutter lag I have heard of for an SLR (40ms is the best I recall reading.)
-
This http://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/qa/products/em1/#05]official FAQ on Olympus about the E-M1 shutter lag (http://) (from pressing the shutter to taking the picture) says it takes about 50ms from internal testing. Adding the viewfinder lag (which will postpone your reaction) we are not that far. But this is all boring numbers talk.
As I said, personally I would be for switching between both systems in the same body. Mostly to save battery when I don't need an EVF or I want my camera to be responsive without burning through batteries like mad. Not everyone would need such a system (which wouldn't be any smaller nor lighter than a DSLR), and that is perfectly fine with me. The more choice we have, the better.
-
In addition to that, an EVF could make things even easier by painting the inner frame for the final FOV of your choice, perhaps shading a bit the outer areas that will be lost, etc...
Sure. Give me the ability to fine-tune that "crop" and I'd be happy. Anyway the extra in-finder coverage is neither deal maker nor breaker, just something I enjoy having with some lenses when using a rangefinder cam.
-Dave-
-
The "frame" in digital is more flexible than ever. As long as the capture can be cropped, you could also use a shorter focal length than desired and crop the inner part. Of course this means wasting a part of your sensor (people cropping in pp do this continuosuly) and lens (people using FF glass on APS sensors do this everytime) resolution, and having to choose a different focal length that desired, but the functionality you like is there. The crop could be performed on the RAW data to save storage space, or just via metadata so that you could "recover" a part of the lost borders if needed.
In addition to that, an EVF could make things even easier by painting the inner frame for the final FOV of your choice, perhaps shading a bit the outer areas that will be lost, etc...
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXEyqGOsiRSBV5oO6B-73WEQ4bXtdWOMMQ87eXgDt5nk9FXlIAOA)
Regards.
This is a good example of pro-EVFs that have a solution looking for a problem :). Its easy to get lost in tech possibilities without looking into basic user requirements first.
If the problem is to be able to see outside the frame without wasting pixels the current RF is the solution.
If the problem is to be able to see outside the frame you can add frame post (crop). So all cameras have this solution.
It’s easy to acknowledge that EVF have strengths that meet some requirements. Such as WYSIWYG in terms of jpeg from built-in camera conversion from RAW. Such requirements are important for some, I and others acknowledge that. But in the same way the pro-EVFs should recognise that for some the first and most basic requirement is to see and be able to capture a photo, and that EVFs simply don’t meet that requirement, but are a hindrance.
-
If the problem is to be able to see outside the frame without wasting pixels the current RF is the solution.
I would never use a camera with parallax error. Only for that reason RF wouldn't be the solution, just one solution for some.
Regards
Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk
-
I keep reading praise about the latest generation of EVFs, so I tried those from Sony (a7rII and 6300), Olympus (Pen-F) and Fuji (x-T1 I guess) and... I don't know what to say...
Bernard,
Have you tried the Panasonic Lumix cameras? The GX8 is pretty awesome. I've switched from Canon.
Cheers,
Jay
-
OVF is better for very fast action. You will always have lag with an EVF because electrical signals travel slower than light (on top of having to process them).
Physically this will remain true, however, there's a point where the human vision system probably can't differentiate the speed difference, especially as the individual ages.
Cheers,
Jay
-
Interesting read. It would seem that this is a matter of personal taste (for want of a better word) and has little to do with the actual quality of the EVF in question. The Fuji x-Pro 2 evf can be adjusted (via jpeg) settings to be quite good as can the Lumix GX-8. I used OVF for years starting in the 60s but must say that once the higher density EVFs arrived, I was hooked.
Dave
-
Always entertaining, these conversations. People give their opinions...but rarely say exactly what they spend their time shooting that makes the lag so unmanageable. I know with my E-M1 I can adjust several combinations of settings to reduce the lag to virtually none, and I can also remove the blackout time between shots to less than my DSLR. I have shot live events and forgotten I was using an EVF. If I shot primarily fast motion and wasn't served by and form of delay, I wouldn't complain the equipment was no good, I was just use the equipment that was.
I actually don't think a lot of the lag in the evf is from the "viewfinder" so to speak. I notice lag happens most during autofocus while panning. When autofocus begins, it seems to want to change how the display is refreshed in that split second. That is probably way off technically, but just trying to relate what I have noticed. Even my first gen X100 can shoot instantaneously enough for street or fast action with the EVF when on manual settings and manual focus.
-
I've never heard/read a complaint about viewfinder lag in traditional camcorders with LCD viewfinders. Most cameras today can be used as camcorders. Is viewfinder lag actually still there but masked by having continuous images?
If cameras can operate with seemingly fast refresh in video mode (not to say seemingly continuous), what's causing them not to work that way in stills mode?
-
Have you tried the Panasonic Lumix cameras? The GX8 is pretty awesome. I've switched from Canon.
Hi Jay,
No, I have not had the chance to try it, will give it a try.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1155069571/canon-files-patent-for-design-of-hybrid-viewfinder-aimed-at-dslr-cameras
-
I've never heard/read a complaint about viewfinder lag in traditional camcorders with LCD viewfinders. Most cameras today can be used as camcorders. Is viewfinder lag actually still there but masked by having continuous images?
If cameras can operate with seemingly fast refresh in video mode (not to say seemingly continuous), what's causing them not to work that way in stills mode?
My assumption would be that it will be impossible to eliminate the lag, as you have a more complicated system with the EVF.
Basic SLR flow: light thru lens to mirrors to eye
Basic Rangfinder: light thru viewer to eye (technically, this would have the shortest path next to a tunnel or no viewfinder, shouldn't this be the fastest?)
Basic EVF: lens to sensor, sensor reads out through circuits to host program that then manipulates and sends it up to the EVF that then decodes the signal, broadcasts it out and to the eye.
Going by basic physics, Rangefinder > SLR > EVF on lag.
That said, on anything action oriented, I am generally shooting a whole bunch of images, so frame rate/time between frames is much more important than EVF lag.
-
Bernard,
I don't know how long you have tried using an EVF, but I doubt that most users start out actually liking them. At first, the EVF is just something you try to accept and ignore all the differences and faults as you use your new CSC.
It's not until you pick up your DSLR again - and maybe this has to happen several times over the course of several months - that you slowly realize that somehow you have grown to not only get used to the EVF, but you now actually prefer it. Now it feels outdated to use OVF, how did that happen?
Actually, you might have the same surprise at now preferring the CSC altogether, even with compromises in some functionality. The DSLR now feels oddly outdated, too. 😀😀
-
But this is all boring numbers talk.
i agree: no more hairsplitting over lag times far less than that of my brain. I will just say that for me personally, state-of-the-art EVF lag is now low enough to no longer be a concern.
As I said, personally I would be for switching between both systems in the same body.
That makes sense, and I wonder why Canon and Nikon do not support their high end models with accessory EVFs, if only for video usage. [Cue snarky comments about using a bulky, expensive high-end DSLR as a hand-held video camera while holding it at arms' length.]
P. S. I think that the vast majority of us want any viewfinder to be through-the-lens, not rangefinder style, so an OVF requires a mirror. But surely it is few decades too late to be debating RF vs SLR!
-
I don't know how long you have tried using an EVF, but I doubt that most users start out actually liking them. At first, the EVF is just something you try to accept and ignore all the differences and faults as you use your new CSC.
It's not until you pick up your DSLR again - and maybe this has to happen several times over the course of several months - that you slowly realize that somehow you have grown to not only get used to the EVF, but you now actually prefer it. Now it feels outdated to use OVF, how did that happen?
Actually, you might have the same surprise at now preferring the CSC altogether, even with compromises in some functionality. The DSLR now feels oddly outdated, too.
I agree so much!. The reasons for this perhaps deserve some psycological approach.
EVF's and OVF's have different strongholds and advantages, and human beings, when switching from one situation to other tend to see what they are losing first, and give a value to what they gain last. After all you can't miss something you never had.
It is not until you have tried something for a relatively long time that you are in a position to make clear judgements; you have adapted to the lacks and begun to enjoy the enhancements. It is now when the tradeoff between the winnings and the loses can be correctlty evaluated.
Those expecting EVF be equal or better in every aspect to OVF will never be happy. A new technology usually never beats the former in all. The point is switching when the advantages compensate for the disadvantages.
Regards.
Enviado desde mi GT-I9195 mediante Tapatalk
-
Bernard,
I don't know how long you have tried using an EVF, but I doubt that most users start out actually liking them. At first, the EVF is just something you try to accept and ignore all the differences and faults as you use your new CSC.
It's not until you pick up your DSLR again - and maybe this has to happen several times over the course of several months - that you slowly realize that somehow you have grown to not only get used to the EVF, but you now actually prefer it. Now it feels outdated to use OVF, how did that happen?
Actually, you might have the same surprise at now preferring the CSC altogether, even with compromises in some functionality. The DSLR now feels oddly outdated, too. 😀😀
This is absolutely my experience too!
It is just the same as when I first encountered a touch screen on the back of a camera. I thought it was nonsense, always going to be touching the thing with my nose, changing settings. Now, after years of iThingies and the GH4, I find myself poking at the Sony A7RII screen and being surprised when it doesn't autofocus on the spot I just touched.
My point, way up in the thread, is that an EVF allows possibilities than an optical viewfinder doesn't. In fact it allows possibilities than an optical viewfinder CAN'T... like controlling the brightness of the view. Or showing zebras for exposure, live and superimposed on the image. Or using the actual sensor to autofocus and showing you the resulting image, thus removing the need for focus shift adjustment on a lens by lens basis. Or zooming in live to magnified view for manual focus.
The view is clearer and more detailed and with less lag through an optical viewfinder. But that's about all it has going for it, because the system simply cannot provide a lot of those other features. Whereas the limits of the EVF system are more amenable to technological development: resolutions are getting much better year on year, and the lag imposed by the readout and display chain is amenable to faster processing.
Human visual response time is really not that big a deal: it's usually reckoned around 190 milliseconds. Most people perceive 24 frames per second as continuous motion so long as we're not panning too fast (~40 milliseconds per frame). 50/60 fps is already available on EVFs; 120 fps on commercial video monitors. So we know how to process the images fast enough.
The latency (the time delay between the stream of images hitting the sensor and the display of the processed images in the EVF) needs to be reduced- but millisecond-scale latencies are entirely in the realm of the possible. That's routinely achieved in scientific detectors, for example.
It's not like we need nanosecond response times or frame rates in the tens of thousands.
One order of magnitude change in each variable would get us to the point where the EVF vastly out-performs even the most discerning of humans. Actually a factor of two would probably do it.
Leica are already claiming the SL viewfinder has lower latency than human vision. Although since they also claim the SL is "the world's first camera conceived for professional photography to feature an electronic viewfinder", I smell marketing BS.... (Thanks Leica, but I'm pretty sure Olympus and Sony et al intend their cameras for professional photography too). Nonetheless, we're close enough for people to be claiming it already.
The problems are engineering ones. Shrinking and merging these technologies into something that will fit into a camera, will run cool enough to not melt sensor/readout chips/human face looking through EVF and costs a sensible amount. The tech is coming.
But most of all, it is hard to go back to the analogue OVF when you're used to all the facilities an EVF provides, even a current-generation EVF.
Cheers, Hywel
-
For me, it is all about color. Setting AWB to Auto gives a strange disconnect between EVF colors and the ones I "see", for example during s sunset. Setting AWB to daylight captures the "true" color tint that my eyes seems to sees at that moment. But then all is different back home where the eye's color adaption is different. This mandates raw shooting, so that the color balance can be changed later when AWB was set to daylight (plus the occasional indoor shoot with AWB still set to daylight with a mix of tungsten and Led bulbs...). So EVF for me means shooting raw material which means a full LR type if workflow etc etc. I am not sure if that is worth it.
-
on my 5D but one thing that annoyed me just about every single time I used it was the crud I could see through it, not easily cleanable either.
That, and the fact that viewfinder coverage was 96% (98% for Mk2). They stopped pulling that cr@p with Mk3 (100% coverage), but I was shooting Sony by then.
On main topic of this thread:
There's just one thing that still attracts me in OVFs: sometimes, I feel like missing the experience I had with film rangefinders: look at the world through imprecise OVF, take a picture, and only see it after the film is developed (I was always developing B&W film myself). Heck, that was a Kinder Surprise experience with each roll! :D :D :D
Other than that, for all my practical intents and purposes, EVFs wipe the floor with OVFs, period.
-
. . . I have seen lag measurements of 25ms for the (2014) Sony A77 Mark II, and 29ms for the (2013) Olympus EM1, both less than the lowest shutter lag I have heard of for an SLR (40ms is the best I recall reading.)
Since this thread has been reawakened: Olympus claims an EVF lag of 6ms (along with 120fps refresh rate, so also about 6ms between frames) for the forthcoming OMD EM1 Mk 2. This seems well into the realm of imperceptible, and far below mirror-flip lag.
-
So EVF for me means shooting raw material which means a full LR type if workflow etc etc. I am not sure if that is worth it.
I'm curious about this. What is it about shooting raw and using Lightroom that makes it more onerous than shooting JPEG? What do you do with your JPEGs? For me, the image developing part is a small part of the time I spend working with photos; most of it is taken up organising, selecting and arranging them, so JPEG or raw makes no difference.
-
Since this thread has been reawakened: Olympus claims an EVF lag of 6ms (along with 120fps refresh rate, so also about 6ms between frames) for the forthcoming OMD EM1 Mk 2. This seems well into the realm of imperceptible, and far below mirror-flip lag.
You seem to be confusing two things. Lag, at least in this conversation is the amount of time it takes for the image to enter the camera and exit to your eye. "Mirror-flip" is more akin to what is called viewfinder blackout.
That said, 6ms lag is still faster than probably almost everyone on this board could react, so the lag article to me, seems to be more theory than actual practice. In an action shooting situation, you are generally working on your own mental prediction of things to come, so effectively you are working prior to the lag. At least in ski photography, EVF lag has yet to cause me any issues.
-
You seem to be confusing two things. Lag, at least in this conversation is the amount of time it takes for the image to enter the camera and exit to your eye. "Mirror-flip" is more akin to what is called viewfinder blackout.
What I am comaring is the time lag between when the scene you want is in front of the camera and what the sensor sees.
The effect of mirror-up is a delay between when you press the shutter release and when the mirror is up so the exposure can start: about 40ms is the lowest value I have seen claimed. With an EVF there is less of a press-to-shutter delay – just to close the shutter curtains, and not even that with electronic shutter or electronic FCS – BUT the EVF lag means that you are pressing the shutter release slightly later.
-
With EVF, useage, all Fuji or Sony, mainly Fuji, the lag does at times become problematic, for me, especially on birds. The movement in the EVF is always just a bit behind reality, and Optical is better for me.
I will say that Fuji has improved the EVF with the X-T2 over even the Pro2, and the lag is not as noticeable.
Paul C
-
What I am comaring is the time lag between when the scene you want is in front of the camera and what the sensor sees.
The effect of mirror-up is a delay between when you press the shutter release and when the mirror is up so the exposure can start: about 40ms is the lowest value I have seen claimed. With an EVF there is less of a press-to-shutter delay – just to close the shutter curtains, and not even that with electronic shutter or electronic FCS – BUT the EVF lag means that you are pressing the shutter release slightly later.
Doh! You got me, I completely blanked on the mirror having to come up first.
So, going off the average human response time is 215ms, 6ms is barely, if even, visible. Since pretty much everything I shoot is in a predictable line or static, it's never been a real issue. I'll say, when I demoed the Fuji X-E1 (or however they write that), it was horrible for perceiving lag. I went Olympus at the time because I couldn't really see it. I'm guessing the newer EVFs would basically disappear, and when I have the spare money, I plan to find out.
-
team,
I keep reading praise about the latest generation of EVFs, so I tried those from Sony (a7rII and 6300), Olympus (Pen-F) and Fuji (x-T1 I guess) and... I don't know what to say...
In my book the shooting experience remains just awful compared to that of a good OVF.
Yes, it is usable, but I am at a loss why so many folks are willing to go for those with their current specs.
I must getting old real quick. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I have had this A7Rii for the past few days, and I agree with you 100% everytime I take it out on street shooting, and capturing the moments type of shooting which I do a good chunk of.
BUT, I purchased it for its still life, architectural, lanscape waiting to happen moments. And in this regard it is pretty great. And the sensor is just fantastic.
What I have come to conclude is that the EVF like A7RII tools are more like using an electronic device first, then the camera is integrated into the electronic system. The OVF is a mechanical tool as a camera first, and is assisted and enhanced by the electronics. So when you need a REAL camera, you need a mechanical instantly active system. When you don't, you can boot up the other device.
-
IMO the only REAL cameras are those with direct view. Like rangefinders, or the Kodak Brownie I used as a four-year-old. No time lag, whether from EVF or flipping mirror.
-Dave-
[Note: I may or may not agree with the above statement.]
-
IMO the only REAL cameras are those with direct view. Like rangefinders, or the Kodak Brownie I used as a four-year-old. No time lag, whether from EVF or flipping mirror.
-Dave-
[Note: I may or may not agree with the above statement.]
Perfect street shooter, then: ambiguous!
Rob
-
Just to add my 2 cents about something I've seen mentioned in EVF vs OVF discussions, people often mention how the scene through an OVF is more representative of reality, more honest colours, etc. Who cares, I would say. The only colours that matter are the ones that appear in the final file. All I want from a viewfinder is to allow me to compose. If I want to look at the real scene, can't I just lower the camera from my eye and look at it? One feature of an EVF, showing the histogram BEFORE taking the picture, has emerged for me as the most important aspect of these things. The fact that the image I see in the EVF doesn't exactly match the scene as seen with the naked eye is of no consequence to me. Obviously, others feel differently but how much of that is just habit, I wonder.
As another contributor has mentioned (I also use an Oly E-M1), EVF lag and blackout are quickly becoming things of the past (borrow an Nikon V2 and do some sports shooting), and it was never anymore than a technological problem anyway. Television cameramen have been using LCD viewfinders while covering high-speed sports action for decades and the viewfinder lag never seemed to impair their work. Early EVFs had terrible lag, it's true, but early Toyotas weren't very good either; times change.
-
One big plus for EVF's is that I don't have to obsess about crud and creepy crawlies in the OVF any more.
Heaven :D
-
One big plus for EVF's is that I don't have to obsess about crud and creepy crawlies in the OVF any more.
Heaven :D
Are you photographer or naturalist?
I've had OVFs since the Nikon F was king; swapped screens more times that I remember and everything could be cleaned - if it got dirty. I could also focus very accurately with that split-image... today, even with the magnifier welded to both digital bodies, the screen itself is very unsuited to assessing sharpness. A tiny green dot below and out of sight of the image is no substitute for a split-image device you can use and see at the right moment. That's why I now have to depend on af, making most of my lenses pretty dodgy for me to use, especially as I like to work very open. A ring of microprisms was an intrusion: only the split-image, please! Maybe that lack of proper screen was Nikon's greatest oversight on producing its Df. I think I could well have been tempted, had it had that single facility; I was already quite keen, but as an overall advance on my status quo, not convincing enough to buy.
Rob
-
Rob,
I am old enough to remember the days of the OVF and microprism. It was nice to get that image to snap into focus with the microprism or a split-image range finder. But, the EVF used in combination with 14x magnification of the focus spot, as available on the E-M1 and other OLY bodies, is even better. You can set your camera so that after auto focus you can at your option touch up the focus by turning the focus ring. As soon as you touch the focus ring the image snaps to 14x (or whatever you set) magnification, filling the EVF, making critical focusing easy. This can be used in low light, something much more difficult with an OVF. I have not seen any system that is more accurate. Just sayin.
There are a lot of opinions expressed with great certainty that just aren't true. One wonders if these folks just tried an EVF while standing at the counter in a camera store without understanding how to optimize the experience?
-
Are you photographer or naturalist?
I've had OVFs since the Nikon F was king; swapped screens more times that I remember and everything could be cleaned - if it got dirty. I could also focus very accurately with that split-image... today, even with the magnifier welded to both digital bodies, the screen itself is very unsuited to assessing sharpness. A tiny green dot below and out of sight of the image is no substitute for a split-image device you can use and see at the right moment. That's why I now have to depend on af, making most of my lenses pretty dodgy for me to use, especially as I like to work very open. A ring of microprisms was an intrusion: only the split-image, please! Maybe that lack of proper screen was Nikon's greatest oversight on producing its Df. I think I could well have been tempted, had it had that single facility; I was already quite keen, but as an overall advance on my status quo, not convincing enough to buy.
Rob
Are you serious?
-
Are you serious?
About what?
-
.....people often mention how the scene through an OVF is more representative of reality, more honest colours, etc. Who cares, I would say. The only colours that matter are the ones that appear in the final file. All I want from a viewfinder is to allow me to compose. If I want to look at the real scene, can't I just lower the camera from my eye and look at it? One feature of an EVF, showing the histogram BEFORE taking the picture, has emerged for me as the most important aspect of these things. The fact that the image I see in the EVF doesn't exactly match the scene as seen with the naked eye is of no consequence to me. Obviously, others feel differently but how much of that is just habit, I wonder.
I agree, and to add I want to be able to see if the image is sharp. Colors is the last thing on my mind. In fact a cool feature would be to see the EVF in Black and white, as an option! This would be like taking a orange filter to see contrast when I did in the 4x5 times shooting with some of the greats I had pleasure to do so with(sorry, it brings back memories).
So, ya, the EVF is fantastic. I turn off auto preview. This makes things much smoother.
(Side note: on the A7RII, I need to use manual screens to save battery and not have a glowing screen on. This means monitor is set to Off. I wish the preview could be set to "auto-dumped" to the monitor vs manually pressing a button to engage and disengage. They need a fw revise for that).
And what NMA mentions about the adaptation to the experience couldn't be more true. You have to accept it will be a different animal than what you are used to, and give it some patients with practice.
But, if you are sneaking a public shot, or trying for that spur of moment instant snap, you have a better chance with a mechanical device. But I have much training to do, its only been a week with not a lot of usage time. I have watched a lot of videos :-)
-
I agree, and to add I want to be able to see if the image is sharp. Colors is the last thing on my mind. In fact a cool feature would be to see the EVF in Black and white, as an option! This would be like taking a orange filter to see contrast when I did in the 4x5 times shooting with some of the greats I had pleasure to do so with(sorry, it brings back memories).
I believe that you can set the camera to capture RAW, but then set picture mode to monotone (or whatever the menu calls it). This shows the scene in the EVF (and LCD) in B&W but will record RAW to the card. For someone who lost the ability to pre-visualize in B&W (assuming I once actually had this ability) this is a nice way to shoot B&W. But having the RAW file recorded means that you can later use the final image in colour or convert to B&W in post. Indeed, this ability to see the scene in monotone, but capture RAW, seems to me to be a really neat feature of EVFs, and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more.
-
I believe that you can set the camera to capture RAW, but then set picture mode to monotone (or whatever the menu calls it). This shows the scene in the EVF (and LCD) in B&W but will record RAW to the card. For someone who lost the ability to pre-visualize in B&W (assuming I once actually had this ability) this is a nice way to shoot B&W. But having the RAW file recorded means that you can later use the final image in colour or convert to B&W in post. Indeed, this ability to see the scene in monotone, but capture RAW, seems to me to be a really neat feature of EVFs, and I'm surprised it's not mentioned more.
Absolutely! This is one of my favorite EVF features. With the Panasonic GX8 I often shoot in monochrome even when color is my main objective. I can see color by looking directly at my scene/subject, then judge b&w potential by looking through the finder. Sometimes I'll go with the b&w JPEG, sometimes I'll do a b&w conversion from RAW and other times a color conversion from RAW. Since the GX8 can re-process RAWs internally (into JPEGs) sometimes I'll use it as an alternate RAW converter.
-Dave-
-
I'm not sure if Sony already does, but their tech in surveillance cameras for B&W is pretty amazing, visibility and focus on subjects in extremely low lux light works very good.
So perhaps EVF's can trump on such tech to max out focus ability in night/low light.
I was having trouble with the A7RII in focusing at night and some subjects. If the camera isn't able to do something, I realized don't try and force the same repeat way to have it focus. You have to change the area, or it just fails. It doesn't work the same way as Canon where you can do a couple focusing attempts and 2 or 3 and it gets it.
-
Are you photographer or naturalist?
I've had OVFs since the Nikon F was king; swapped screens more times that I remember and everything could be cleaned - if it got dirty. I could also focus very accurately with that split-image... today, even with the magnifier welded to both digital bodies, the screen itself is very unsuited to assessing sharpness. A tiny green dot below and out of sight of the image is no substitute for a split-image device you can use and see at the right moment. That's why I now have to depend on af, making most of my lenses pretty dodgy for me to use, especially as I like to work very open. A ring of microprisms was an intrusion: only the split-image, please! Maybe that lack of proper screen was Nikon's greatest oversight on producing its Df. I think I could well have been tempted, had it had that single facility; I was already quite keen, but as an overall advance on my status quo, not convincing enough to buy.
Rob
Split screen is fine as long as your subject was always in the middle of the frame...but if your subject is away from the middle...you are SH*T out of luck having to focus and recompose.
-
Split screen is fine as long as your subject was always in the middle of the frame...but if your subject is away from the middle...you are SH*T out of luck having to focus and recompose.
In the interest of being a contrarian, because almost all approaches have merit, focus & recompose is a skill you can develop. If you're using a rangefinder and you want (or need due to light levels) both shallow-ish DOF and an off-center subject, focus & recompose is what you must do. With practice you can get good at it.
That said, are EVFs an advancement because they allow precise focus almost anywhere in the frame? Yes. Will this stop me from using my rangefinders (and manual focus SLRs)? No.
-Dave-
-
In the interest of being a contrarian, because almost all approaches have merit, focus & recompose is a skill you can develop. If you're using a rangefinder and you want (or need due to light levels) both shallow-ish DOF and an off-center subject, focus & recompose is what you must do. With practice you can get good at it.
That said, are EVFs an advancement because they allow precise focus almost anywhere in the frame? Yes. Will this stop me from using my rangefinders (and manual focus SLRs)? No.
-Dave-
Yes...but the way Rob stated that he uses split screen focus because he can nail focus right at the moment implies the subject needs to be in the middle of the image. You cannot do focus and recompose "right at the moment".
-
OVF's are generally (low light would be a case when they're not) better for evaluating the scene. EVF's are always better for evaluating capture (exposure, focus, white balance).
Unless I am shooting something requiring a "decisive moment", I use my unaided eye to evaluate the scene and my viewfinder, either ovf or evf, to evaluate my cropping, then either the evf or the lcd to evaluate the capture, then I shoot.
-
"decisive moments" are planned and waiting to happen. But you still need to be quick on the draw for the instance at time in can happen in, and for that a slapping mechanical camera might be the one to go with. But if I had a few chances of getting it, it wouldn't stop me from trying it out with the EVF/A7RII
-
I'm one who finds the EVF's nice in a few situations, but very distracting and a steep step downwards in the zen of using a camera. That is what drew me to the Fuji line, the X-pro1 and X100s in particular, despite some drawbacks in their operation. I can have my optical viewfinder cake and eat it too, when I feel like taking advantage of the awful looking but sometimes useful evil twin, the EVF. Life's good - with Fuji.
-
I almost sold my A99 a few years ago after using it for only a week. I didn't like the EVF either. I boxed it up and went back to the A900 with a OVF for about one day and then I jumped back top the EVF and have never looked back. I love it!
-
For me it is not the fact that it is a EVF vs a OVF. (A7RII)
Its the lag in coming on when you put the camera on, or wake it.
Its the lag in taking the picture, and preview.
focusing in the dark even in magnify mode the EVF looks blotchy
Its also a setting that I think should be addressed in firmware....
When using the camera, mainly due to battery, and not being distrancting and having your monitor on the camera lit up all the time, I turn the EVF/Monitor Auto mode OFF. SO Only the EVF comes on when I put my face to the screen, IF I am manual in EVF mode, otherwise the Monitor is off, and I have a shortcut to turn it on....
BUT, When you use EVF to shoot, to get to a preview, and back to shooting is a 3 button round trip!
There needs to be a mode to take the picture in EVF and auto preview in the monitor regardless of where your face is. Its nice to pull your face away and look in front of you the scene, and know you have the preview for a few seconds.
I actually like seeing the peaking. I also now found a setting that will brighten the screen to focus and not mimic a dark scene if I am in one. So the advantages are many for me. I think the problem is the rest of the system needing to catch on. Maybe it needs a Bions X100 multiplier?
-
I'm an oldish guy and have shot with everything from Kodak instamatic to rangefinders 8X10, linhoff Canon Nikon Mamiya, Konica, Minolta, Sinar, Cambo and so on and so on.
Hated EVF to start with but now it's my favorite. Easy to custom set so you get a really clean view with little clutter. Lovely to be able to quickly adjust exposure to what you see without having to refer to the exposure indicators. Over under exposure compensation doesn't rely on experience and is much more accurate. I don't notice lag but I don't shoot sport. I do shoot fashion and stuff but that not like F1 exactly. I have come to trust the system so much I have turned off all reviews on my Sony. It's almost like film days. I shoot and don't chimp at all. First look at the files is now when I get home. Not for commercial stuff of course. Commercial shoots there is frequently a team of people checking the image on a tethered laptop. I never allow clients to peer at the camera LCD. I never use it when shooting with an EVF.
Only time EVF annoys me is I can't just pick up a camera that is turned off and have a quick look through the viewfinder, but that's just a twitch anyway.
-
For me it is not the fact that it is a EVF vs a OVF. (A7RII)
Its the lag in coming on when you put the camera on, or wake it.
Its the lag in taking the picture, and preview.
focusing in the dark even in magnify mode the EVF looks blotchy
Its also a setting that I think should be addressed in firmware....
When using the camera, mainly due to battery, and not being distrancting and having your monitor on the camera lit up all the time, I turn the EVF/Monitor Auto mode OFF. SO Only the EVF comes on when I put my face to the screen, IF I am manual in EVF mode, otherwise the Monitor is off, and I have a shortcut to turn it on....
BUT, When you use EVF to shoot, to get to a preview, and back to shooting is a 3 button round trip!
There needs to be a mode to take the picture in EVF and auto preview in the monitor regardless of where your face is. Its nice to pull your face away and look in front of you the scene, and know you have the preview for a few seconds.
I actually like seeing the peaking. I also now found a setting that will brighten the screen to focus and not mimic a dark scene if I am in one. So the advantages are many for me. I think the problem is the rest of the system needing to catch on. Maybe it needs a Bions X100 multiplier?
It seems to me that most of your complaints are not about the EVF per se but about how your camera company implemented it. The lag and preview issues could be improved or eliminated by better engineering; they are not fundamental. On the other hand, focusing in the dark is not perfect with an EVF; it is merely impossible with an OVF. I don't understand these complaints. What we are seeing is the evolution of the EVF. Soon, if not now, the EVF will be superior to OVF in nearly all situations.
-
Just looked through the EVF of the new Hasselblad- OK but not impressed.
much contrast and a bit coarse.. ( AF also a bit slowish and searching)
Like the liveview on my d810 better. + the ability to use an OVF.
I expect a lot of development on the EVF-front the coming years.
-
Yeah, EVFs are vastly improved over what they were even a half-decade ago. And they'll continue improving. The first EVF camera I used in anger was a Sony Hi-8 video cam c. 1996. By current standards its EVF was rubbish, but even that was good enough to frame with.
-Dave-
-
Just a thought...
The whole contrast issue and the way EVFs respond in different conditions... as long as you are a RAW shooter, you can change how the screen looks. (and it wont get recorded to the file) The EVF is showing a "jpg" approximation of what will be recorded in a sense. At least on my camera, I can adjust the shadow, highlight, and contrast levels that are displayed and basically lower the perceived levels and adjust brightness to what looks more natural to me.
In fact, there are many times where looking through the EVF and then lifting my head, I totally lose sense that it is an EVF with how accurate it can be. Obviously this depends on conditions and how the EVF is set. Store trials are a horrible way to do this.
I find the viewfinder, the EVF, etc... are just tools to connect me better to my end goal. I often shoot tethered to a laptop. Let me tell ya... a 13" monitor with live view and then an immediate computer preview is even better than a viewfinder! Lightroom adjustments set on import and all!
I have a Hasselblad 500. I love seeing the viewfinder on that. It is a unique way to experience the world. It's very alluring. As is the feel of the camera, etc... I get people don't want to give up a direct view... At the end of the day, EVFs have completely won me over because it ties me closer to my desired end result and I am producing the image I want more directly. That is making a difference.
-
Just a side note: Tony, when I first read your URL, Unlockingolympus.com, I thought it might be an introduction to Greek mythology 8)
-
It seems to me that most of your complaints are not about the EVF per se but about how your camera company implemented it. The lag and preview issues could be improved or eliminated by better engineering; they are not fundamental. On the other hand, focusing in the dark is not perfect with an EVF; it is merely impossible with an OVF. I don't understand these complaints. What we are seeing is the evolution of the EVF. Soon, if not now, the EVF will be superior to OVF in nearly all situations.
You're right :-), as my last couple sentences confirm that I do think it is the right direction, and yes, I am likely venting on the other issues with the A7rII :-) (Its a bit new to me, and still a bit bitter regarding those issues).
Lets just hope in the next round the rest of the tech can remedy these calculations and lags to make things a more seamless experience.