Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: EVF  (Read 31153 times)

AlfSollund

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
Re: EVF
« Reply #40 on: March 31, 2016, 06:57:38 am »

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.

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.
Logged
-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: EVF
« Reply #41 on: March 31, 2016, 07:50:21 am »

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

Jason DiMichele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
    • Jason DiMichele - Fine Art Photographer and Printer
Re: EVF
« Reply #42 on: March 31, 2016, 12:18:46 pm »

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
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer an

Jason DiMichele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
    • Jason DiMichele - Fine Art Photographer and Printer
Re: EVF
« Reply #43 on: March 31, 2016, 12:31:57 pm »

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

Logged
Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer an

David S

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 311
Re: EVF
« Reply #44 on: March 31, 2016, 12:33:47 pm »

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
Logged

TonyVentourisPhotography

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 391
    • Unlocking Olympus
Re: EVF
« Reply #45 on: March 31, 2016, 02:38:24 pm »

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.     
Logged
Tony
Unlockingolympus.com (ebooks & blog on getting the most from your OMD & Pen)
tonyventourisphotography.com (Commercial Photography)

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
    • Robert's Photos
Re: EVF
« Reply #46 on: March 31, 2016, 02:49:34 pm »

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?
Logged
--
Robert

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: EVF
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2016, 09:27:00 pm »

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

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Logged
Regards,
Ron

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: EVF
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2016, 10:28:54 am »

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.
Logged

Sophia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: EVF
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2016, 12:42:52 pm »

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.   😀😀
Logged
Sophia

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
EVF and TTL OVF in one camera: some people would benefit
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2016, 12:52:48 pm »

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!
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2005
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: EVF
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2016, 03:41:32 pm »

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

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: EVF
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2016, 05:15:35 pm »

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
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 05:52:29 pm by Hywel »
Logged

JoachimStrobel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 30
Re: EVF
« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2016, 05:55:00 pm »

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.
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: EVF
« Reply #55 on: September 21, 2016, 07:30:51 pm »

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.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: EVF lag vs OVF mirror flipping lag
« Reply #56 on: September 21, 2016, 09:49:07 pm »

. . . 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.
Logged

af_ahoy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: EVF
« Reply #57 on: September 22, 2016, 03:23:33 am »

Quote
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.
Logged

SZRitter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 384
Re: EVF lag vs OVF mirror flipping lag
« Reply #58 on: September 22, 2016, 09:20:40 am »

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.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: EVF lag vs OVF mirror flipping lag
« Reply #59 on: September 22, 2016, 02:25:46 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up