Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: stevejac on February 18, 2014, 05:21:56 am
-
I also have a GM1 as backup for an Olympus EM-1. I quite like the GM1, but that's not what I'm commenting upon. I wonder, instead, about the reviewer's aversion to using bifocals. I've been using them for years and simply don't do anything without them. I've got the hidden bifocals, both standard and in sunglasses (the latter without polarization that will make some lcd's invisible).
The hidden ones avoid any challenges to vanity as well as being much more usable. Perhaps the reviewer has the hidden ones, and they aren't properly aligned with his eyes? If they are, I've found them to be perfectly functional.
-
I didn't know they still made bi-focals.
I have been wearing vari-focals for many decades and have not found them to be any handicap at all for photography, whether using waist-level viewfinders, optical eye-level viewfinders or even EVFs.
One misconception that I frequently encounter in discussions about taking photographs while wearing specs (not directly related to this thread) is that an amazing number of folk seem to have forgotten what we all knew when SLR film cameras were first introduced - i.e. that the viewfinder shows a two-dimensional image on a ground glass screen (or its modern equivalent). So, if the viewfinder dioptre adjustment is correct (in my case, to suit the "distance" area of my vari-focal lenses) then, if the viewfinder image looks sharp, so will the photograph. Incredible how many people think that, when using a reflex viewfinder, your eye is actually focussing on the subject via the viewfinder and the camera lens.
-
Firstly, varifocals make me nauseous. I've tried them several times. Not for me.
Secondly, I don't like shooting with glasses on, bifocals or not. When it's windy they make my eyes tear, and when it's sunny I wear sunglasses. With sunglasses I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition. Without them I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition.
Did I mention that I hate rear lcds for composition? Phooey.
Michael
-
I need glasses for reading and hence to see the screen. With a viewfinder I don't need to wear my reading glasses outside. Biggest risk for me is acute dizziness when walking and wearing the reading glasses leading to being on the ground in seconds!
So viewfinder or not my camera.
Dave S
-
For me varifocal (aka graduated) eyeglasses have been a huge plus since I need different correction for reading, monitor viewing and distance. I've been using 'em for a decade now...after a brief adjustment period I forgot all about the graduated aspect. In fact this is probably the first time I've thought about it in years. :)
I love using LCD screens as waist-level finders, especially when tripod mounted. This lets me reduce tripod height in many situations too, often a good thing.
-Dave-
-
For me varifocal (aka graduated) eyeglasses have been a huge plus since I need different correction for reading, monitor viewing and distance. I've been using 'em for a decade now...after a brief adjustment period I forgot all about the graduated aspect. In fact this is probably the first time I've thought about it in years. :)
I love using LCD screens as waist-level finders, especially when tripod mounted. This lets me reduce tripod height in many situations too, often a good thing.
-Dave-
That flipping screen is something the new Fuji X-T1 has that could prove a great attraction along with auto-focus; I often think I'd love to shoot something really at ground level, but will simply not get down and dirty when there's no commercial imperative to drive me to it. (Anyway, vanity aside, I sort of wonder if I could even get back up again from down there, without falling on my ass first.)
Rob C
-
Firstly, varifocals make me nauseous. I've tried them several times. Not for me.
Secondly, I don't like shooting with glasses on, bifocals or not. When it's windy they make my eyes tear, and when it's sunny I wear sunglasses. With sunglasses I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition. Without them I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition.
Did I mention that I hate rear lcds for composition? Phooey.
Michael
I am blesses (cursed) with extreme myopia, nicely correctable with glasses, but without glasses, I can focus on the rear LCD of any of my cameras, Sony a65, panny GF1 or G2, at a distance of only a few centimeters, close enough to allow elbows into the chest. Granted, I prefer the EVF of the Sony or the G2, but the GF1 works fine for me.
-
Firstly, varifocals make me nauseous. I've tried them several times. Not for me.
Secondly, I don't like shooting with glasses on, bifocals or not. When it's windy they make my eyes tear, and when it's sunny I wear sunglasses. With sunglasses I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition. Without them I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition.
Did I mention that I hate rear lcds for composition? Phooey.
Michael
This is a very important point for some of us. At this point in life it is difficult to see the LCD screen well enough for composition detail without readers. However, with proper dioptric correction, the image in the rangefinder or ground glass or EVF can be quite clear.
Additionally I think it was you who pointed out that the hold was something like holding a baby with a dirty diaper when viewing an LCD and not terribly stable.
-
I am blesses (cursed) with extreme myopia, nicely correctable with glasses, but without glasses, I can focus on the rear LCD of any of my cameras, Sony a65, panny GF1 or G2, at a distance of only a few centimeters, close enough to allow elbows into the chest. Granted, I prefer the EVF of the Sony or the G2, but the GF1 works fine for me.
That's like having a really big viewfinder I guess. :)
-
I like Michael's article on the GM1 because it is a user-review, not a preview, and shows the limitations in field-use of this object. But I hope to test the next version of this camera myself - I don't believe that one size needs to fit all.
Edmund
-
Part of the problem with bifocals and similar eyeglasses is that the optician is formulating the lenses for people using them for reading or for driving and not for use with a computer screen 30 inches away or for use looking through a viewfinder or checking a LCD display. If provided with guidance as to how you use the eyeglasses they can adjust them for a specific use.
I have general pairs in both regular and tinted (no polarized as that causes problems with the LCD display and when using polarizing filters), and one for computer use that is dialed in for my typical distance from the monitor.
Thank god and Leitz for autofocus cameras which greatly reduces my dependence on eyeglasses. Peculiar that Leitz developed the technology but refused to implement it with their Leica RF cameras.
-
If you don't need distance specs just go to the store with your camera and find ones that allow the viewfinder image to be crisp.
Higher numbers make things appear slightly larger but only because it forces you to hold things closer. Most wear drugstore readers far more powerful than they need and further weaken their reading abilities. One pair will probably allow computer screens and the viewfinder, but chef yourself to be sure. there are some person to person variation.
-
Firstly, varifocals make me nauseous. I've tried them several times. Not for me.
Secondly, I don't like shooting with glasses on, bifocals or not. When it's windy they make my eyes tear, and when it's sunny I wear sunglasses. With sunglasses I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition. Without them I can't properly see a rear LCD for composition.
Did I mention that I hate rear lcds for composition? Phooey.
Michael
Bifocals? Try tri-focals like I have. I have never found my glasses to be an impediment to photography (all with eye-level viewfinders), although I surely would like my 20 year-old eyesight back!
-
How about this (http://www.clearviewer.com/)? I thought the GM1 may be a great carry-everywhere camera, but the lack of viewfinder options was extremely off-putting. While I occasionally use the flip-out LCD on my Panasonic G3 for high or low shots, the electronic viewfinder is my viewer of choice.
-
"Phooey" is a great word. I'd forgotten it. Now I have a new word to play, if my Scrabble tiles line up just right.
-
Bifocals? Try tri-focals like I have. I have never found my glasses to be an impediment to photography (all with eye-level viewfinders), although I surely would like my 20 year-old eyesight back!
I thought people wore varifocals these days?
Though I did see an article on glasses you could focus (http://www.superfocus.com/) a while back.
-
I wonder, instead, about the reviewer's aversion to using bifocals.
I suspect that the problem here is that Michael doesn't need bifocals, but just needs glasses for very close work(readers). A single prescription for close vision.
That's actually a very important distinction that most people who do need proper bifocals realise.
I fit into the single prescription category and trying to work round it with half moon style glasses really just isn't an option. Trust me on this, I've spent nearly 15 years working with TV viewfinders for which I need glasses, but my normal vision is perfect from 5ft, so to see the ground clearly the glasses have to come off.
Michael's comments on viewfinders in the review are pretty much bang on for me, although I also loath eye level electronic viewfinders on still cameras too. They're just nowhere near good enough yet.
-
A potential bifocal solution for what you suggest Rhossydd, is to have correction for close work and the second/top lens be neutral rather than corrective.
-
A potential bifocal solution for what you suggest Rhossydd, is to have correction for close work and the second/top lens be neutral rather than corrective.
That's just no good. Every time you look down to see where you're walking the close up part of the lens makes everything out of focus. Until you've experienced this problem you can't really understand it.
Best solution: Proper optical viewfinders with dioptre adjustment. It's nothing new.
-
I guessed that could be an issue, but suggestion was more for being able to see camera controls and distance.
Would laser surgery help your eyes? I've known some folks try it and it made a big difference to them, as their issue was not having to wear glasses whilst doing martial arts or partner dancing.
-
Would laser surgery help your eyes?
No, as I said my vision at distances over 5ft is excellent, so any sort of surgical intervention would harm my normal eyesight.
It's known as 'lack of accommodation'. Simply put, as you get older your eye muscles loss their ability to pull close subjects into focus. It pretty much happens to everyone eventually.
Simple answer: Good optical viewfinders on cameras.
-
No, as I said my vision at distances over 5ft is excellent, so any sort of surgical intervention would harm my normal eyesight.
It's known as 'lack of accommodation'. Simply put, as you get older your eye muscles loss their ability to pull close subjects into focus. It pretty much happens to everyone eventually.
Simple answer: Good optical viewfinders on cameras.
Any good view finder will work for me as I am quite happy with EVFs.
Problem is that most of the "market" is younger and has the eye sight of youth just like I did those many years ago. Sometime about 50 or so, the issue made it's appearance. I have no trouble at even 4 feet but cannot ready anything smaller than 18 point type without "reading" glasses.
So viewfinder or nothing!
Dave
-
Simple answer: Good optical eye-level viewfinders on cameras
be they optical or electronic.
-
be they optical or electronic.
No, as I said at reply #16
eye level electronic viewfinders .... They're just nowhere near good enough yet.
-
Michael's comments on viewfinders in the review are pretty much bang on for me, although I also loath eye level electronic viewfinders on still cameras too. They're just nowhere near good enough yet.
Oh I'd disagree with that. As although they are not as good as they will eventually be, they are better than OVFs in many ways already.
Manual focusing wide aperture lenses for example when shooting wide open is simply not possible to do with any accuracy with my Canons. The reason - the focusing screen reduces apparent aperture to f2.8 so it's impossible to accurately focus a f1.4 lens. This completely caught me out when I first tried it, plus the image looked so very different with a much shallower depth of field it makes composition harder. Which brings me to the fact that your view is wysiwig which is far better than viewing something that bears little relationship to what you are actually taking. You can see white balance or exposure issues, you can view in B+W or whatever colour style you fancy, very useful. I'd say the EVF in the Fuji is more useful than the OVF in my 5Ds and finally it's a decent size too. Almost as big as my antique OM cameras. ;D
-
Almost as big as my antique OM cameras.
Quite.
Part of the problem right now is so many newcomers to photography don't appreciate how good optical viewfinders can be, so settle for second rate EVF horrors.
-
Part of the problem right now is so many newcomers to photography don't appreciate how good optical viewfinders can be, so settle for second rate EVF horrors.
Have you looked at recent EVFs? They are very good and as I said above superior to OVFs in several ways.
-
Have you looked at recent EVFs?
Yes, including the supposedly wonderful new Sony one. It's grim, I'd rather use a APS-C DSLR.
-
The EVF in the X-T1 beats the pants off any APS-C looking down a pokey hole viewfinder It's also bigger and better for focusing than my FF bodies and getting things in focus is a key requisite in my books for viewfinder functionality. :)
-
getting things in focus is a key requisite in my books for viewfinder functionality.
Never had a problem with that myself.
-
Never had a problem with that myself.
Well you can't manually focus fast lenses accurately with Canon focusing screens [I think Nikons are the same], no matter how skilled you are. An f1.4 is effectively f2.8 [DoF], so an EVF is vastly superior in that regard.
-
Yes, including the supposedly wonderful new Sony one. It's grim, I'd rather use a APS-C DSLR.
Since this thread is originally about a consumer level 4/3" format camera, I am glad that you are not comparing to the OVFs of medium format cameras, or vintage manual focus 35mm format cameras. So tell me, which APS-C DSLR has a viewfinder that you find superior to the best current EVF offerings? And in which respects is that OVF superior for your usage? (I suspect that you and I have very different needs and criteria for VF's).
-
I can't stand APSC viewfinders, it's like peering down a tunnel, awful things. So no idea why anyone would think they are good. Let alone a superior product.
-
So tell me, which APS-C DSLR has a viewfinder that you find superior to the best current EVF offerings? And in which respects is that OVF superior for your usage? (I suspect that you and I have very different needs and criteria for VF's).
EOS 1100D which happened to be on the same stand as the new Sony A7(?) at a store I went to.
I just really hate EVFs. I spend my entire working life with the best ones available for video work, but for stills I want an optical viewfinder.
-
I just really hate EVFs. I spend my entire working life with the best ones available for video work, but for stills I want an optical viewfinder.
Suit yourself, of course. But I'll take truly accurate manual focusing, optional in-finder histograms, etc. any day over the glories of the optical experience. These things are genuinely useful! I do video with my "still" cameras now too...for this EVFs are a huge plus. I do enjoy using my old SLRs, made back when the optical finders really were good, but I'll never buy another camera that doesn't have a full-featured EVF.
-Dave-
-
EOS 1100D which happened to be on the same stand as the new Sony A7(?) at a store I went to.
So you like tunnel like OVFs and not being able to manually focus fast lenses then? ???
I just really hate EVFs. I spend my entire working life with the best ones available for video work, but for stills I want an optical viewfinder.
I agree video camera EVFs are awful, but the ones in video cameras are nothing like as good as the new Olympus/Fuji ones. I've never liked EVFs before these cameras, now I wish my Canon had them.
-
So you like tunnel like OVFs and not being able to manually focus fast lenses then? ???
No, read what I wrote. I thought the EOS optical viewfinder nicer to use than the A7. That doesn't mean that it's my preferred choice of camera.
I'll say again, I don't have difficulties with focusing.
I agree video camera EVFs are awful
Again you're not commenting on what I've written.
Some viewfinders for video cameras are fit for purpose. I'm now usually using a Sony HDVF EL75 it's as good as video viewfinders get, but it's not exactly a cheap option.
-
No, read what I wrote. I thought the EOS optical viewfinder nicer to use than the A7. That doesn't mean that it's my preferred choice of camera.
Looks like you are the one not reading correctly! :P
I didn't say it was your preferred camera, just that you like tunnel like viewfinders which is what you get on APS-C cameras.
I'll say again, I don't have difficulties with focusing.
And more misreading. You must not use fast lenses then I take it [>f2.8]. Because as has been mentioned several the fact that you cannot accurately manual focus them on a ground glass screen as minimum DoF is f2.8.
I've tested this. Focus with OVF and then check with live view and big differences can be observed.
Again you're not commenting on what I've written.
Some viewfinders for video cameras are fit for purpose. I'm now usually using a Sony HDVF EL75 it's as good as video viewfinders get, but it's not exactly a cheap option.
Except, you are the one not reading as I was referring to video viewfinders not ext monitors.
-
Looks like you are the one not reading correctly! :P
I didn't say it was your preferred camera, just that you like tunnel like viewfinders which is what you get on APS-C cameras.
Go back and read what I actually said, Reply #27
" the supposedly wonderful new Sony one. It's grim, I'd rather use a APS-C DSLR."
Let me spell that out for you. I'd prefer to use a APS-C DSLR viewfinder compared to a Sony A7. OK? Nothing about preferring to use an APS-C viewfinder in general.
And more misreading. You must not use fast lenses then I take it [>f2.8].
Again I'm NOT misreading like you.
I don't have difficulties with focusing. No I don't use wide aperture lenses, never suggested I do.
Except, you are the one not reading as I was referring to video viewfinders not ext monitors.
The HDVF EL75 IS a viewfinder, not an external monitor. Check the specs, it only has a viewfinder input and doesn't take a normal video feed.
If you had any knowledge of broadcast camera technology you'd understand that.
Why spend so much time making a fool of yourself arguing over my preference ?
I don't like EVFs, you're welcome to them, I don't need them.
-
I really do not mind what your preferences are and you're perfectly entitled to prefer one thing over another. It would be stupid to make you change.
But you are denying some facts, not opinions, facts. Modern EVFs in stills cameras, have advantages over optical viewfinders that for many people have huge advantages. In particular manually focussing fast lenses, which OVFs simply fail at. And is about as fundamental a flaw as you can get. Just because you have not encountered a problem, doesn't mean it isn't one.
I have some fast primes which sadly are tricky to focus with Canon's OVFs and I don't need glasses either.
Focussing screens on cameras with AF are not very good at manual focusing when compared to cameras without AF.
-
But you are denying some facts, not opinions, facts.
Please quote any comment I've made that 'denies facts'
-
Please quote any comment I've made that 'denies facts'
Part of the problem right now is so many newcomers to photography don't appreciate how good optical viewfinders can be, so settle for second rate EVF horrors.
Your opinion, not a fact. For others they are superior in functionality and for everyone who manually focuses fast lenses they are far superior, because modern OVFs cannot focus them accurately.
I also loath eye level electronic viewfinders on still cameras too. They're just nowhere near good enough yet.
Again, in your opinion.
The EVF in the Fuji is also bigger than any DSLR optical viewfinder I believe and size really does matter with viewfinders.
Simply put, as you get older your eye muscles loss their ability to pull close subjects into focus. It pretty much happens to everyone eventually.
Simple answer: Good optical viewfinders on cameras.
No the solution is a dioptre adjustment facility on your viewfinder. Because the best viewfinder of any kind is a bit rubbish if you cannot even focus on on it. So to address the specific problem we are talking about, lack of focus accommodation with age and not wanting to wear glasses depends on a viewfinder that can be adjusted to match your close vision. Not whether it is an OVF or an EVF.
You hate EVFs, we get that and I never liked them myself until very recently, but now after having tried the most recent versions, I find my OVFs a bit lacking.