Is the Sony A7R II the first "universal body"?

[Brent Daniels]

Yes the constant brightness with depth of field previewing, or being able to see the effect of expose compensation in the viewfinder is nice. However one thing I had never heard mentioned about the Sony EVF (maybe all EVF) is the amount of moire. For me it is very distracting at times. Maybe one gets used to it but it is quite surprising that I had never seen a comment about it when researching the camera.

[AlterEgo]

For me it is very distracting at times.

worrying about BF/FF when using bright primes wide open & PDAF or mirror slap/shutter shock in a certain range of exposure times are much more distracting things for some people...

[telyt]

correct DOF preview for say f1.4 ? and with which focusing screen exactly may I ask ?

Nikon F or F2 with E screen.  Certainly not an AF SLR, film or digital.

[telyt]

I am not denying that EVF have some advantages, but to me the ability to anticipate how the A/S/ISO parameters will turn a 3D live scene into a static 2D photograph, and the resulting look thereof, is pretty much the most important photographic skill.

I am not sure that enabling our finders to preview more of that is going to result in better photographs because what matters is the ability to scan a scene and identify photographic opportunities in the scene. Removing the need to perform this mental exercise when taking the picture may result in the creation of photographers enable to see photographically.

I welcome the opportunity to see in real-time where feather detail in white plumage will be clipped.  I do not often have the luxury of re-taking a photograph.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

correct DOF preview for say f1.4 ? and with which focusing screen exactly may I ask ?

I use the Canon Ec-S Super Precision Matte focus screen. Optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture wider than f/2.8. DOF at f/1.2 or f/1.4 is virtually non-existent, but it does help to focus because the OOF zone is more obviously defocused. On a regular screen everything wider than f2.8 looks the same as at f/2.8. I do not experience any darker center when using apertures wider than f1.8, like with my 85mm f/1.2 L II. I even use the S screen for narrower aperture lenses, I do not swap it back to the regular screen, even though the focus screen looks a bit darker, it still helps to get the focus right. And did I mention without any time lag ...

Cheers,
Bart

[eronald]

I welcome the opportunity to see in real-time where feather detail in white plumage will be clipped.  I do not often have the luxury of re-taking a photograph.

poor thing looks so indignant

[AlterEgo]

I use the Canon Ec-S Super Precision Matte focus screen. Optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture wider than f/2.8.

let us see... what the manufacturer says = http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf

"...A Super Precision Matte screen such as the Ec-S is optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture of f/1.8 – f/2.8. ..""

so even they are not willing to bet on 1.4  ...  but of course one can always say that beyond the spec of his own focusing screen the DOF magically disappears, no ?

and oh, if somebody (still not being able to focus @ 1.4, not even saying about 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 @ 1.2 though viewfinder) decide by any chance to go long telephoto then oops = "...Note, however, that with lenses that have a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8, a Super Precision Matte screen will appear dark and grainy..." , that certainly calls for a 2nd body to avoid spoiling the experience.

the truth is very simple - there are no focusing screens designed to nail focus at 1.4 and faster through OVF in dSLR, that's it.

[AlterEgo]

Nikon F or F2 with E screen.  Certainly not an AF SLR, film or digital.

so where are the official spec from Nikon for this screen ?

[telyt]

so where are the official spec from Nikon for this screen ?

It's not only the viewscreen.  The Nikon F and F2, unlike AF SLR cameras, have a fully-silvered mirror instead of semi-silvered so the viewscreen does not need to compensate for the dim image.  Furthermore, the bean counters apparently have instructed the AF cameras' engineers that since the camera's users will be using AF, designing the cameras so that the viewscreen image plane can be easily adjusted to coincide with the sensor image plane is an unwarranted expense.

[pegelli]

Maybe the OVF provides a fast high resolution preview without lag, and with the correct DOF preview as determined by the aperture?

I think OVF have certain advantages, but accurate DOF preview is not one of them in my mind.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think OVF have certain advantages, but accurate DOF preview is not one of them in my mind.

Hi Pieter,

There should be no difference in DOF or focus in an OVF setup, compared to the optical lens projection on the sensor, both are optical images. The OVF may require the use of a better focus screen for wide aperture lenses, otherwise everything at f/2.8 and wider will look the same.

But I'm open minded about it, both approaches have their benefits and drawbacks. For me, the low resolution and associated DOF and focus rendering inaccuracy of EVFs, and the time lag, are drawbacks. Things like focus peaking (if implemented well(!)) and amplified brightness in dimly illuminated conditions are benefits. So over time, when EVF resolution increases (a lot), and ASIC chips + firmware get the preview image processed faster, without draining the battery capacity too much, then they will make OVFs unnecessary, and even be a better solution.

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

Bart, I agree EVF's are not ideal either but especially for smaller apertures the OVF becomes so dark that you can hardly see anything, neither composition nor dof.

Also focussing "wide open" for instance with a 2.8 lens my OVF (Sony A850) seems to give much more DOF then the final result, even when shooting at f 4.0.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart, I agree EVF's are not ideal either but especially for smaller apertures the OVF becomes so dark that you can hardly see anything, neither composition nor dof.

Also focussing "wide open" for instance with a 2.8 lens my OVF (Sony A850) seems to give much more DOF then the final result, even when shooting at f 4.0

I assume that the focus screen of the A850 is designed for brightness rather than for focus/DOF accuracy. That's why high-end DSLRs offer the option of interchangeable screens (the A850 has optional Type M screen (super spherical acute matte for fast lenses) to replace the generic G screen). BTW, it's surprising that e.g. the new 5DS has a fixed focus screen (maybe a signal that a 1 series body can be expected...).

Cheers,
Bart

[kers]

As I understand EVF still has some delay showing the scene making it less usefull for ( fast) moving subjects...
In some ways liveview with a Loup makes a DSLR have an EVF and an OVF... it is a bit clumsy, but it works.
( i have mine connected with magnets)
an evf next to the OVF would be a better solution.

What i notice is that it is the first time Sony brings out a camera with more pixels than Nikon- If we consider that the sensor technology is Sony's that could mean their contract has finished or is altered.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

let us see... what the manufacturer says = http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_FocusingScreens_QuickGuide.pdf

"...A Super Precision Matte screen such as the Ec-S is optimized for wide-aperture lenses, specifically those that have a maximum aperture of f/1.8 – f/2.8. ..""

so even they are not willing to bet on 1.4   ...  but of course one can always say that beyond the spec of his own focusing screen the DOF magically disappears, no ?

Being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative?

You're mistakingly reading something into the info that Canon provides. The OOF part from apertures wider than f/1.8 is accurate (although the screen is not optimized for that, it does work), it's just that the center spot may become a bit darker (important to know for spot exposure measurement), but I do not notice it visually(*). That's why they say it's optimized for f/1.8 to f2.8 (there are few lenses that are wider than f/1.8, so that makes less sense to concentrate on).  At f/1.2 it's not really important how the DOF preview looks, even though it's accurate but partially a tiny bit darker, because the creative choice is made for an ultra thin DOF zone, not for how the OOF zone transition looks (bokeh is great anyway).

*) I do notice a slight edge darkening and non-circular OOF specular highlights due to the raised mirror becoming a 'visible' obstruction in the extreme aperture angle of view at f/1.2 .

the truth is very simple - there are no focusing screens designed to nail focus at 1.4 and faster through OVF in dSLR, that's it.

Maybe you should actually try it before dismissing it. I have, and do know what I'm talking about from experience. A dedicated focus screen does help a lot in getting better manual focus, and helps to more accurately preview the transition of the focus to out-of-focus zones, and thus make an informed choice of shooting aperture. It is very exact in previewing how prominent, or not, the fore/background features will distract from the main subject that's in focus.

At smaller apertures the screen will indeed look darker than the generic screen, but I have very few lenses that are in that category. I do not mind the darker than generic screen, as it's still accurate. With long telelenses, getting focus is more important than focus-screen darkening, and one can always exchange the focus screens if that is preferred.

With an EVF I have to zoom in to the pixel level to compensate for the lack of LCD resolution, but then I'd lose the overview of the full image.

Cheers,
Bart

[chez]

With an EVF I have to zoom in to the pixel level to compensate for the lack of LCD resolution, but then I'd lose the overview of the full image.

Cheers,
Bart

And that's one of the EVF advantages...you can zoom in to ensure the eye lashes are precisely focused at 1.4. Not so much with an OVF.

[pegelli]

I assume that the focus screen of the A850 is designed for brightness rather than for focus/DOF accuracy. That's why high-end DSLRs offer the option of interchangeable screens (the A850 has optional Type M screen (super spherical acute matte for fast lenses) to replace the generic G screen).

Thanks Bart, and I was aware of these M screens. I tried them once with a borrowed A900 which had it, but then found the viewfinder for dark scenes is getting too dark for me and less ideal for for instance stage photography.
Like all things, incl. EVF vs. OVF, vs. different screens etc. it's always a compromise. The "ideal" camera still has to be invented (for me at least).

[dchew]

I am not sure that enabling our finders to preview more of that is going to result in better photographs because what matters is the ability to scan a scene and identify photographic opportunities in the scene. Removing the need to perform this mental exercise when taking the picture may result in the creation of photographers unable to see photographically.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't know Bernard. I bet there were many similar forum posts when the first SLR's started coming into vogue in the middle of the last century. "Oh my, seeing only the image in the finished frame will be the end to seeing photographically." - Anonymous forum poster, 1946

 

Dave

[BJL]

Maybe the OVF provides a fast high resolution preview without lag ...

That might for now still be an advantage, but as sensor read-out and EVF refresh rates get up to 120fps and beyond, I expect the EVF lag to become negligible within a technology generation or two.

... and with the correct DOF preview as determined by the aperture (and not crippled by the limited number of pixels of the EVF)?

Again probably true for now, with the XGA (1024 x 768 x 3 colors) EVFs of the latest models, but note that the secondary OVF image scattered off a frosted glass/plastic screen is limited in resolution to the equivalent of under 2 MP, so again, EVFs are getting close to matching that. [Edit: and so when you can use even modest 2x magnification, EVFs clearly win for detail over any SLR OVF.]  And as others have said, OVF DOF preview is often impossible at small apertures due to dimness, and is overestimated at larger apertures (f/2 and under?) again due to the way that secondary image is produced.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And that's one of the EVF advantages...you can zoom in to ensure the eye lashes are precisely focused at 1.4. Not so much with an OVF.

Nah, that's what Live View is for, or better yet a (lightning fast) micro-adjusted Phase Detect Focus system which doesn't take the full view away, so one can properly compose and focus, and even follow/predict motion if the subject moves. I recommend trying it if your shooting style/subject could benefit from it. There are of course many shooting scenarios, and even more photographers, where the result is not that critical. But for professional results, one best uses the proper tools (which can differ by subject), sometimes EVF, sometimes OVF (with additional Life View).

Cheers,
Bart