EVF

[Guillermo Luijk]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[TonyVentourisPhotography]

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. 

[chez]

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.

[JaapD]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[kers]

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.

[AlfSollund]

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.

[Telecaster]

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-

[scooby70]

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.

[Guillermo Luijk]

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...



Regards.

[razrblck]

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.

[Guillermo Luijk]

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

[razrblck]

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.

[BJL]

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.)

[razrblck]

This http://cs.olympus-imaging.jp/en/support/imsg/digicamera/qa/products/em1/#05]official FAQ on Olympus about the E-M1 shutter lag (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.

[Telecaster]

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-