Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mhecker* on January 28, 2012, 09:05:05 am
-
The next generation of electronic viewfinders will match human vision. :)
See http://www.microoled.net/news/news-from-microoled
Cheers,
Miles
-
I can see a time in the near future when the bulky mirror-box and pentaprisms in DSLRs are going to be consigned to history. The reduction in bulk will be nice - but the promise of better lens designs - particularly wide angles - is really something to look forward to.
-
Just like digital matches film?
-
There's another argument for EVFs in Kirk's Take (Kirk Tuck #4) (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/01/kirk-4.html), an essay about aspect ratios. An excerpt:
One of the reasons I have been so passionately enamored of the mirrorless cameras is that removing the optical finder from the equation means camera makers can give us back our freedom of choice when it comes to the configuration of our framing via the electronic viewfinder. I bought the Olympus E-P2 with its electronic viewfinder largely because I can set the camera so that, when I bring the finder to my eye, I see a square image framed by black. And every EVF capable camera I can think of strikes the same blow for Freedom of Choice.
-
The next generation of electronic viewfinders will match human vision. :)
It may depend what you call 'next' too - for this announcement, the first quote of 5M pixels sounded nice, but it was a tad less exciting to see it was only 1.3M pixels in colour (though the RGBW setup does sound nice, for sure).
Wait, look into the viewfinder, and see.
(late edit : typo)
-
EVF'S seems already to match the resolution of the secondary image of the frosted glass or plastic of an SLR's optical viewfinder (which is far less than what the less delivers), and DR is now getting very good too, so with the many ofte-stated advantages like zooming for precise manual focus, some of us are ready to retire our OVF'S ...
but for dealing with motion, the lag involved in reading out from sensor to EVF, and associated issues like tearing of the image as you pan, have been the most prominent disadvantage compared to OVF'S, and look to be the last barrier to EVF domination.
With sensors now handing 60fps HD video and 120fps read-out for AF (Panasonic) we might be close.
-
Cause resolution is the only factor in a sensors performance?
-
Every EVF I have looked through has just been horrible, without exception. All the subtleties and nuances of the light are missing, and the DR is unnaturally stretched so the shadows seem too light.
All this is about, as usual, is cutting costs for the manufacturer. It has nothing to do with improving the camera or the photographer's craft.
John
-
I believe it's just a natural progression that all cameras will eventually have evf's.
Some don't like it, some do, but the opportunity for touch screen focusing and large viewing along with a camera format redesign is just too tempting and obvious.
You also have to consider that the present generation's first camera is an i-phone, so they don't have a clue or a care what an optical viewfinder is.
A lot of what works well and doesn't depends on the maker. The Iphone proved you can take an electronic device and give it a tactile, almost analog feel with no experience of the typical electronic disconnect.
If you've ever looked through a RED Bomb EVF you never really notice or care if it's analog or digital, just that it is easy to focus and represents the scene as it will be recorded.
That's the benefit of a good electronic finder, to know exactly what you are recording.
I'm sure electronic wizardry will even offer more creative functions like tracking a single person through a group, or adjusting exposure from shadow to highlight in a smooth transition.
Professional cameras will change and I'm actually surprised that they are so many generations behind consumer products.
IMO
BC
-
Every EVF I have looked through has just been horrible, without exception.
Which of the recent EVF's for "Compact System Cameras" have you looked through? The EVFs in the Sony NEX-7, the Panasonic G3 and GH2 and new LVF-2 accessory EVF, and the Olympus VF-2 accessory EVF, are all in a different league than older P&S EVF's.
-
Which of the recent EVF's for "Compact System Cameras" have you looked through? The EVFs in the Sony NEX-7, the Panasonic G3 and GH2 and new LVF-2 accessory EVF, and the Olympus VF-2 accessory EVF, are all in a different league than older P&S EVF's.
To be fair, I think I am probably just in a crabby mood tonight :( Yes, the newer EVFs are greatly improved. But they are still EVFs. You see, I don't want to see what the camera will record (I didn't in film days, either). I want to see which piece of the reality in front of me I am framing, and I want to see exactly what state the light is in at the moment I press the shutter release. What the negative or digital file then gives me I won't use as it stands in any case, but I have pre-visualised that end result (the print) as I observe reality (the subject) not through a viewfinder but with my eyes as I stand in front of it. The act of lifting the camera to my eye, framing, and exposing the film is the very last thing I do in this act of making a photograph. So I want the image in my viewfinder to look as close to reality as possible, which is perhaps why I experience an immediate disconnect with an EVF. In fact I'd sooner have a wire-frame finder, or the sports finder I have for my 500 C/M.
John
-
+1!
Best regards
Erik
I believe it's just a natural progression that all cameras will eventually have evf's.
Some don't like it, some do, but the opportunity for touch screen focusing and large viewing along with a camera format redesign is just too tempting and obvious.
You also have to consider that the present generation's first camera is an i-phone, so they don't have a clue or a care what an optical viewfinder is.
A lot of what works well and doesn't depends on the maker. The Iphone proved you can take an electronic device and give it a tactile, almost analog feel with no experience of the typical electronic disconnect.
If you've ever looked through a RED Bomb EVF you never really notice or care if it's analog or digital, just that it is easy to focus and represents the scene as it will be recorded.
That's the benefit of a good electronic finder, to know exactly what you are recording.
I'm sure electronic wizardry will even offer more creative functions like tracking a single person through a group, or adjusting exposure from shadow to highlight in a smooth transition.
Professional cameras will change and I'm actually surprised that they are so many generations behind consumer products.
IMO
BC
-
John,
In some ways I understand. There is nothing quite like that thrill of looking at a scene in real time through eyes only then shooting, turning to the monitor and seeing the image with all the processing, lighting adjustments, "film" looks on the screen.
It's transformational.
Then again, now that our studios are working so much with continuous light and the RED's and our cameras are set up for tone, color, wb, shutter angle, etc. etc., when the talent steps out on set I see in real time on the EVF what the scene will look like, or at least close to what it will look like.
I guess I've become use to it and I don't notice the difference.
Last week shot the RED's next to my contax and you couldn't make two different cameras or viewing experiences if you tried, but once again, maybe I'm just use to it, but I never seemed to notice a difference between the two viewfinders, other than with the RED the screen showed it all, with the Contax I had to look at an I pad to see how the lighting and file look was working.
Regardless what we like, or how old or new school we want to be, I'm positive that EVF's are the future.
IMO
BC
-
[...] and the Olympus VF-2 accessory EVF, are all in a different league than older P&S EVF's.
Resolution-wise yes, but I was really let down by the tonal rendition.
That's the benefit of a good electronic finder, to know exactly what you are recording.
Yes but I record raw, not jpg, and the EVF shows me the jpg with poor DR. Not necessarily the same.
For me, that's the big benefit of a ground glass, it corresponds to what I see, with just a bit of flatness added (very useful to keep a bit of 3d with the help of light, details...) and therefore is much easier to frame with.
-
I do not want EVF period.
Why?
Taking a photo is a series of events. Prior to pressing the trigger it deals with pre-visualizing in the minds eye for how the actual scene will be captured by our sensor or film. An aid in that pre-visualization is an optical viewfinder or groundglass. It shows us the REAL and ACTUAL scene, altered only by the glass. An EVF shows instead an electronic interpretation of the actual scene and one which is partly processed into a rendering not necessarily per our vision or intention. That will be miss-guiding us, and in my opinion give a worse tool for pre-visualization than an optical viewfinder or groundglass.
Further, I also believe we should all be very cautious because we are being over sold on digital and electronic products for sake of making us spend more $. As my view above implies, it is not certain that something new is better. The more I learn about photography, the more I lean towards the traditional and not electronic means, albeit shooting it with digital sensor.
Best regards,
Anders
-
Hi,
I'm much in favor of electronic viewfinders. Why? There are quite a few reasons:
1) What you see is what you get. The SLR principle was invented to achieve this. Now that we have new technology allowing us to see the sensor image the moving mirror is not needed.
2) Accurace is improved. In a DSLR there are two moving mirrors, one for viewing and one for AF. The secondary AF mirror is normally hinged on the back of the main mirror. Both need to swing out of the optical path before exposure. Both need to be aligned within 0.01 mm. Sensor, viewfinder screen, the two mirrors, the AF-sensor and the mounting flange needs to be aligned within 0.01 mm. That demand is quite stiff. The 0.01 requirement is a bit on the extreme side, but according to sources using Alpa, 0.01 mm matters with Alpa lenses at f/4 or f/5.6 so DSLRs would not be less demanding. Using the sensor for the viewing image eliminates everything except that the sensor needs to be parallell to the lens mounting flange!
3) Focusing view can be magnified to actual pixels. That is the best focusing aid for sure!
4) We are getting rid of the vibrations from moving mirror assemblies.
5) Response time can be faster.
6) Electronics aids are available. I much like the electronic horizon I can display in the viewfinder. Having histogram before shooting may also be nice.
7) Peaking! I have no experience of peaking, but I presume it is most helpful, specially if we try to do Scheimpflug.
Now, I'm fully aware that electronic viewfinders are not as good as the best optical ones, but many optical viewfinders are less than optimal and I expect electronic viewfinders go trough a fast development. The new Sony cameras A77 SLT and NEX-7 are said to have the best electronic viewfinders. I have not yet seen any of those, although I have a Sony Alpha 77 SLT on order.
Last, but not least, replacing a high quality optical viewfinder with an electronic one makes for major savings for the manufacturers. It may not matter for well heeled customers buy makes it possible for vendors to improve their margins.
For me, the SLR principle is "the old way of thinking" and electronic viewing is the present way of thinking.
Best regards
Erik
The next generation of electronic viewfinders will match human vision. :)
See http://www.microoled.net/news/news-from-microoled
Cheers,
Miles
-
Why?
Taking a photo is a series of events. Prior to pressing the trigger it deals with pre-visualizing in the minds eye for how the actual scene will be captured by our sensor or film. An aid in that pre-visualization is an optical viewfinder or groundglass. It shows us the REAL and ACTUAL scene, altered only by the glass. An EVF shows instead an electronic interpretation of the actual scene and one which is partly processed into a rendering not necessarily per our vision or intention. That will be miss-guiding us, and in my opinion give a worse tool for pre-visualization than an optical viewfinder or groundglass.
Further, I also believe we should all be very cautious because we are being over sold on digital and electronic products for sake of making us spend more $. As my view above implies, it is not certain that something new is better. The more I learn about photography, the more I lean towards the traditional and not electronic means, albeit shooting it with digital sensor.
Best regards,
Anders
Then going forward I doubt if your going to get exactly what you want.
Viewing through one device, to capture through a second worked with film, with digital it's redundant.
Sure there will be optical viewfinders, at least on older cameras. Heck you can still buy 8x10 cameras and film, but not a lot of development is going in that direction.
I don't know if you work in heavy production or not, where every ten minutes can be a thousand dollars, but if you do, you'll find that asking a tech "were those last frames tact sharp" seems kind of silly in this day and age.
I grew up on optical viewfinders where film size was actually large and it was a lot easier to see and manipulate focus than it is today where the biggest frame area is 645 and the ground glass is plastic that gives an impression of more depth of field than actually is available.
And yes, there is a price on moving forward, always is.
But in regards to not seeing what we're actually visualising. That makes no sense as with proper settings you can get much closer to seeing your "film look" on an EFV like the RED than you ever will looking through an analog finder.
Regardless, as I stated before the possibilities of electronic viewing go way beyond focus confirmation, or a wish to stay in the past. There is so much potential in electronics and I sure, it's a way to sell us more stuff. but what's wrong with that?
I've spent my life producing content and services so clients and client's, client's customers will buy "new stuff".
That's the plan man.
IMO
BC
-
1) What you see is what you get. The SLR principle was invented to achieve this. Now that we have new technology allowing us to see the sensor image the moving mirror is not needed.
As said, it's the argument I disagree most with : in my olympus VF2, there is the same kind of tonal distorsion relative to the scene, as it is to what I envision as a final image. The ground glass is much closer to the scene, and, more often than not, to my visualisation too.
It may also well be that I'm much more accustomed to "decipher" a scene and visualize the image with the help of a ground glass ; but the very poor visibility of the shadows part of a scene through an EVF makes me think it's not the main problem for now.
But in regards to not seeing what we're actually visualising. That makes no sense as with proper settings you can get much closer to seeing your "film look" on an EFV like the RED than you ever will looking through an analog finder.
Yes, the final image is obtained via some correct settings applied to the sensor capture...
But I shoot raw because those settings are not trivial in many cases, and I prefer chasing them :
- with the comfort of a big and accurate computer screen (and processing power),
- and with some consideration, away from the non-visual stimuli of the scene.
5) Response time can be faster.
Yes it may ;) .
6) Electronics aids are available. I much like the electronic horizon I can display in the viewfinder. Having histogram before shooting may also be nice.
And that is for me one of the bigger advantages of EVF. Histogram superposition takes imho a tad too much of the precious viewfinder estate, but a saturation blinker, and eventually a shadow one too to indicate noise floor (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57654 ), is really very helpful to expose right.
Of course these should be raw-based... O tempora, o mores!
Alas, I didn't try peaking as I got an olympus (Mr Olympus pleaaaaase...), but that sounds quite promising too for manual focus.
I also agree with the others point, mainly that the mirror mechanism is the source of many accuracy problems and vibrations.
(some late edits added, sorry)
-
Recording is the word.
When photographing, a lot of the time you are watching, and very little time you are actually shooting. When recording, lag doesn't really matter, nor is a precise view of the scene, because you the cameraman's job is to shoot, and the rest of the crew makes sure that the right stuff is in front of the camera (hair strands etc), and that focus is correct. When photographing, you need perfect view of detail.
If you've ever looked through a RED Bomb EVF you never really notice or care if it's analog or digital, just that it is easy to focus and represents the scene as it will be recorded.
That's the benefit of a good electronic finder, to know exactly what you are recording.
IMO
BC
-
Recording is the word.
When photographing, a lot of the time you are watching, and very little time you are actually shooting. When recording, lag doesn't really matter, nor is a precise view of the scene, because you the cameraman's job is to shoot, and the rest of the crew makes sure that the right stuff is in front of the camera (hair strands etc), and that focus is correct. When photographing, you need perfect view of detail.
And that, in a nutshell, is my definition of photography hell!
Rob C
-
I do not want EVF period.
An aid in that pre-visualization is an optical viewfinder or groundglass. It shows us the REAL and ACTUAL scene, altered only by the glass. An EVF shows instead an
Best regards,
Anders
To me "pre-visualization" means a preview of my results, including previewing the sharpness of in-focus parts and the extent of out-of-focus effects. The secondary image scattered off ground glass (or plastic) overstates DOF at low f-stops, and is too low in resolution to check fine details or precise focus. So _in these respects_, a good EVF can give a far more reliable preview.
That still leaves the issue of accurate rendering of contrast, and lag between what the EVF shows and what the sensor is seeing at the same moment, so I will add contrast/DR preview to my list of requirements for an EVF that unequivocally surpasses an OVF.
But before we reach that "better in every possible way" status, we are in the familiar "old vs new" debate, like film vs digital, where each alternative has advantages, and people take sides partly on the basis of their personal priorities. I for example rarely photograph moving subjects, and when I do it is with panning, so that the subject is not moving much in the VF, and I deal with DR by careful exposure settings, not on the basis of what I see on the viewfinder? So _for me_ a big, bright (even in low light) zoomable EVF image of good resolution that can accurately preview DOF is clearly preferable. And non-TTL OVFs with parallax errors close-up (I like macros) and no focus information at all are completely off my list.
P.S. why is this thread in the medium format forum? That is the last place the EVFs will take over!
-
I hope it won't be matching my vision or we're all doomed! ;D
The next generation of electronic viewfinders will match human vision. :)
See http://www.microoled.net/news/news-from-microoled
Cheers,
Miles
-
I've heard the term "decisive moment" since I was an Art Director and later a photographer.
"uhh, ooooh, aaahhhh, he/she is so marvelous at capturing the "decisive moment".
I hear it today and most of it is just BS, because if every photographer was perfect at capturing the "decisive moment" they would only shoot one frame a session and be done with it and nobody would ever retouch a blinked eye, a crooked finger, hair that looked like a blown scarf, fix a crooked smile, remove a crew member's hand, the list goes on.
In fact if you want to make a boring photograph, especially one that involves people, make a perfect photograph. Move every finger, direct every strand of hair, the lips exact, the body in an exact way and the humanity will go flying off the image.
When I shoot a 35mm camera I get more "decisive moments" because I can shoot faster with less lag time. When I shoot medium format, (yea, yea I know it's more "thoughtful") which means it's slower and less active which makes easier decisive moments but definitely not more.
So what's the difference between 1 frame every 3 seconds or 1 frame a second or 30 frames a second if you get the right shot?
If you don't think photographers constantly miss the decisive moment, then shoot a RED like a still camera for 30 seconds and click through the frames. You'd be amazed at how many decisive moments there are.
And . . . it doesn't change your input or creativity one bit, it adds to it. Regardless of fps you still compose, direct, light, capture (I said capture rather than record, so not to piss anyone off).
I really don't have a dog in this fight, because I use what people make and every camera has an advantage, every camera has a liability. The goal to use the advantages to their fullest and try to make the liabilities an asset.
In fact I believe in both optical and evfs, as I use both and still cling to those old contax' with the crappy small viewfinder . . . because I just like the camera.
Regardless of the above, regardless of what I think I am positive of this;
Things change and either you go forward, are you get passed by.
That's not the nature of photography, that's the nature of the world.
IMO
BC
-
Probably all arguments are mentioned by now, but anyways:
1. The OVF of a large professional DSLR is not the same as a cheap Canon/Nikon one. For most users it is not a choice between a large, bright OVF and a cheap EVF, but between a cheap OVF and a cheap EVF. Cheap electronics tend to improve a lot faster over time than cheap glass does.
2. EVF means full-time sensor grabbing, probably more battery drain and heat generated, may mean different compromises in the sensor itself, and may mean that you might as well go with CDAF (or the unusual solutions by Nikon and Sony). A seemingly isolated change leads to large changes elsewhere.
3. EVF means helpful overlays, no doubt. (and annoying ones). I think Guillermo has some nice ideas that probably will be scrapped by the iPad-swinging interaction-designers :-)
4. Some talks about "seeing the scene as it really is, not after distorted by the jpeg engine". Funny that through-the-lense viewfinder is a good thing, while through-the-sensor is a bad thing. I tend to think that having a conservative visual feedback on how the sensor clips white and black, and how noisy it is, can be a good thing. Same with color limitations and WB. If you really want to see how the scene really is, you need to open your other eye.
5. Latency will be a problem for those who have little time. I am sure that a $4000 sports-monster mirror-less could optimize the sensor/processing/EVF a lot more than current designs, but probably never close to the speed of light through 10cm of glass and air.
I would be very excited to see mirror-less technology applied to 35mm or MF sensors. Perhaps Panasonic would do like Pentax, take their existing software/hardware solution, put it into a larger sensor housing, add some processing power. If nothing else, to prove that the concepts works and for the publicity.
-h
-
BC, the "decisive moment" has as much to do with the photographer's "decision" as it does with the elements of the scene being "decisive." H C-B was not as skilled a philosopher as he was a photographer, but he was onto something fundamental about bringing inspiration to the point of action. Surely, you are right, and there is not just a single such moment. This is to say that you are also correct, but H C-B walks away unscathed.
It does seem that the era of "pre-roll" is nearly upon us. In audio recording, pre-roll is a feature of a recorder whereby it is always recording and retaining 30 seconds worth of material. Each time you press the "record" button, the recorder has the previous 30 seconds of material already in the can. Invaluable. Correspondingly, there is no reason for the camera to await your shutter release before taking some pictures on its own. I believe the Nikon 1 does something like this. And in the era of fast image pipelines (EXPEED3 and beyond), why not? I agree with you, there are a lot more moments in there than one supposes.
BTW, some of the models I've seen, the nerdier girls, give so many interesting looks per second, that I think I'd need a rapid-capture device to sort it all out. Working at a slower speed, it's be too easy to dismiss some of these gems as awkward, when I think they are the true fashion aliens that a good photographer wants. Have you ever felt this way?
-
I would be very excited to see mirror-less technology applied to 35mm or MF sensors. Perhaps Panasonic ...
Good points about the issues still to be dealt with. Note though that lag does need to exactly equal that of an OVF (about a nanosecond), but just for the difference to be imperceptible (about 10 milliseconds?).
On speculation about an EVF-equipped camera in one of the traditional film formats, one common guess is that the first such camera will be a Sony SLT, since Sony seems to be moving on from traditional DSLRs. But my guess is that the SLT approach is a temporary solution to the challenge of combining EVF with good, fast, flexible auto-focus, and that it will be surpassed soon enough by either
1. In-sensor PDAF/CDAF hybrid, as seen first in the Fujifilm F300 EXR and more recently in the Nikon One models,
or
2. Making CDAF good enough, which seems to be the Panasonic plan.
Of those, it might be interesting if Fujifilm decides to try again with a medium format sensor; this time with live view and Hybrid AF.
-
Hi,
I used to be shooting show jumping, with SLR and film. Neither the system or the photographers was fast enough to react, you needed to predict the decisive moment and realease the shutter like 0.08 seconds before. With electronics the display may lag a bit more but the response may be a bit faster as you don't need to wait for the mirror to move out from the optical path.
Best regards
Erik
BC, the "decisive moment" has as much to do with the photographer's "decision" as it does with the elements of the scene being "decisive." H C-B was not as skilled a philosopher as he was a photographer, but he was onto something fundamental about bringing inspiration to the point of action. Surely, you are right, and there is not just a single such moment. This is to say that you are also correct, but H C-B walks away unscathed.
It does seem that the era of "pre-roll" is nearly upon us. In audio recording, pre-roll is a feature of a recorder whereby it is always recording and retaining 30 seconds worth of material. Each time you press the "record" button, the recorder has the previous 30 seconds of material already in the can. Invaluable. Correspondingly, there is no reason for the camera to await your shutter release before taking some pictures on its own. I believe the Nikon 1 does something like this. And in the era of fast image pipelines (EXPEED3 and beyond), why not? I agree with you, there are a lot more moments in there than one supposes.
BTW, some of the models I've seen, the nerdier girls, give so many interesting looks per second, that I think I'd need a rapid-capture device to sort it all out. Working at a slower speed, it's be too easy to dismiss some of these gems as awkward, when I think they are the true fashion aliens that a good photographer wants. Have you ever felt this way?
-
snip
It does seem that the era of "pre-roll" is nearly upon us.
If the best EVF came out today and every camera company adopted it, that doesn't mean you can't use legacy cameras and shoot to a piece of ground plastic to your hearts content.
What comes with an EVF hopefully will come with different formats.
It's kind of silly that we look at the "medium format" segment of digital and think it's actually medium format given that only a small percentage of backs/cameras are actually full 645 frame and 645 was the smallest of all medium formats.
I'd love to see a square that we could crop in viewfinder to any format we wished.
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 guess what I'm saying is I'd love to see real innovation. I was hoping RED would go forward with a larger format sensor if only to allow us to shoot a panoramic look, or square or vertical all within the same camera.
Of course I want to decide beforehand what format fits the scene, or the creative brief, but having that option would be amazing . . . at least for my work.
Since most medium format digital cameras only shoot close to 1.2 or 1.4 seconds a frame, I'd love to push the button and get one and a half seconds of images. I know it will make for a more natural image.
As far as hitting the decisive moment, when I do it I'm genius, when I miss it my heart sinks. In fact with mirror based cameras the shot I don't see is the good one, the shot I do see through the viewfinder is the one we missed.
As far as shooting models or actors, so many times on set while were placing lights, or preparing the camera I'll look over and see the most amazing looks. Every day I walk over and say . . . what you just did, do it again, but let me have a lens pointed at you. The great on camera talent can repeat it with perfection, the really great on camera talent can expand upon it.
Still, I know that making cameras must be hard, must be expensive and must have a market to make a profit, but I'd love to see a complete rethink of how we work, what we work with and how the tools respond.
We're still in the shadows of film cameras and though I'm not an engineer, I assume we don't have to be.
IMO
BC
-
Good points about the issues still to be dealt with. Note though that lag does need to exactly equal that of an OVF (about a nanosecond), but just for the difference to be imperceptible (about 10 milliseconds?).
If televisions are an indication, 10ms is hard to achieve, even in "gaming" mode. Seems that 1-3 frames (at 60fps) is usually added for whatever reason (HDMI buffers, image processing,lcd panel rise-time...)
Now, doing dedicated camera electronics might offer other opportunities.
10ms is occasionally quoted as a threshold for electronic musical instruments latency. Guess that photographers have no stricter timing requirements than drummers?
-h
-
And that, in a nutshell, is my definition of photography hell!
Rob C
Hey Rob,
Video camera operator is the job still photographers get when age takes their reflexes away :)
Edmund
-
Hey Rob,
Video camera operator is the job still photographers get when age takes their reflexes away :)
Edmund
Pithy!
-
Video camera operator is the job still photographers get when age takes their reflexes away :)
...and their spines are still healthy enough to sacrifice.
-
My 10ms guess corresponds to 100fps, and only video resolution sub-sampling is needed (never mind a little moiré in the VF, especialy if it only in a high-speed mode for action photography), and there are already some compacts from Casio for example with faster video rates than that. My guess is that the same increase in read-out and processing speeds will also make CDAF fast enough and good enough within a couple of Moore's Law performance doubling generations, meaning about three years.
-
To me "pre-visualization" means a preview of my results, including previewing the sharpness of in-focus parts and the extent of out-of-focus effects. The secondary image scattered off ground glass (or plastic) overstates DOF at low f-stops, and is too low in resolution to check fine details or precise focus. So _in these respects_, a good EVF can give a far more reliable preview.
I would argument that what you describe is post-visualization (not pre-visualization), since at time for choosing aperture, with a trained photographic mind and eye, you should already know what will be correct aperture for the desired DOF. Pre-visualisation refers to the decision for making the important exposure decision prior to pressing a shutter or looking at a preview of the image. Simply speaking, I believe the eye should be at the subject and not at any display of it, whether at back of camera or EVF.
As one of posters above mentioned H C-B, it is a good example that the decision for a photograph should be in anticipation of the correct/decisive moment. Thus any live view will fail at capturing as decisive moment (no matter how many frames per second your camera can shoot).
Exception from the above is a scene that is static and in which the light does not change, in which case shooting tethered is an option because it gives you access to all processing means for your RAW file at same time of preview and for making the exposure decision.
Best regards
Anders
-
... with a trained photographic mind and eye, you should already know what will be correct aperture for the desired DOF. ... I believe the eye should be at the subject and not at any display of it, whether at back of camera or EVF.
... H C-B, it is a good example ... any live view will fail at capturing as decisive moment ...
Exception from the above is a scene that is static and in which the light does not change, in which case shooting tethered is an option ...
This is sounding a lot like "digital will never be as good as film" traditionalism and not much like a balanced, rational comparison of the alternatives. And frankly, the suggestion that one can always avoid an EVF with stationary or slow moving subjects by tethering is ludicrous, as if that only happens in a studio or with a tripod. Most of my stationary subjects are reached with a lot of walking and I confess, most are photographed hand-held.
-
EVF will come no matter what, because it's cheaper for the manufacturer in the long term. Manufacturers don't care for decisive moments.
I have always enjoyed looking at a ground glass or a 6x6 matte of a MF camera. I still think this is superior to any LCD-Liveview, although it is essentially the same thing only one is electronic. I don't know why that is and I'm not that old to be emotionally connected to either of these techniques...
--
Christoph
-
As one of posters above mentioned H C-B, it is a good example that the decision for a photograph should be in anticipation of the correct/decisive moment. Thus any live view will fail at capturing as decisive moment (no matter how many frames per second your camera can shoot).
If the sensor grabs at full resolution all of the time, then no matter what the latency is, you will experience a delayed version in the EVF, and have equal oportunities to grab the "decisive moment" by clicking at the right time according to the EVF.
Assuming that even though your view may be 100ms delayed, the grab that ends up on flash is also delayed by the same amount.
-h
-
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
-
Hi,
I absolutely hated the viewfinder image on the Hasselblad 500C (which I never owned) and the Pentax 67. I also had a waist level finder for the Pentax, but I never used it without the loupe. So, I guess my experience is different. I had the meterless prism on the Pentax 67, as I was a spot meter addict and felt no need for light meter. Quite possible that the prism with light meter was better.
Later Hasselblad 500 had a groundglass made by Minolta, they may have been better than my initial experience.
I'm not saying that MF viewfinders are bad, just that the couple I have used were bad.
Best regards
Erik
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
-
If the sensor grabs at full resolution all of the time, then no matter what the latency is, you will experience a delayed version in the EVF, and have equal oportunities to grab the "decisive moment" by clicking at the right time according to the EVF.
Assuming that even though your view may be 100ms delayed, the grab that ends up on flash is also delayed by the same amount.
-h
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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...
-
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!