Optical Viewfinder RIP

[mhecker*]

The next generation of electronic viewfinders will match human vision.   

See http://www.microoled.net/news/news-from-microoled

Cheers,
Miles

[buckshot]

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.

[lowep]

Just like digital matches film?

[Gary Brown]

There's another argument for EVFs in Kirk's Take (Kirk Tuck #4), 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.

[NikoJorj]

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)

[BJL]

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.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Cause resolution is the only factor in a sensors performance?

[John R Smith]

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

[bcooter]

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

[BJL]

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.

[John R Smith]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

+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

[bcooter]

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

[NikoJorj]

[...] 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.

[Anders_HK]

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

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[bcooter]

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

[NikoJorj]

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)

[eronald]

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

[Rob C]

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