Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: About "Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders"  (Read 21220 times)
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2013, 01:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

OMD and D700 user. The ability to see a live histogram (despite its derivation) trumps just about every other consideration for me.
Roy
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1303



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2013, 12:29:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).

If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Regards
Logged

jonathanlung
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2013, 06:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I can leave my OVF running 24/7 without draining my battery...
Logged
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2013, 06:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Based on Michael's just published non-review of the Fuji X Pro-1, I guess being able to see a live histogram in the OVF and being able to switch from OVF to EVF for magnified view is probably the ultimate view finder experience right now. I do find the viewfinder aspect of this camera appealing. If Fuji figures out how to add focus peaking to their EVF mode I will be really tempted to get into this system.
Logged
grzybu
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2013, 03:21:28 AM »
ReplyReply

If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Yeah, that's really annoying. Why not to allow people to see RAW histogram? Burn it deep down into menu if you don't want casual user to enable it by mistake (not that casual user knows what histogram is for).
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2013, 10:38:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I can leave my OVF running 24/7 without draining my battery...
And I can and do leave my EVF running, and indeed can neglect to turn off the camera, because there are timed automatic shut-offs with user selectable delays. Anyway, the EVF screen is far smaller than the rear LCD, so its power usage is considerably less. The only way I can drain a battery in a single day is by taking a great number of photographs, not EVF battery drain.

Arguments this weak in favor of the "old ways" smell of technological Bourbonism from people who have not tried the thing they are criticizing.
Logged
jonathanlung
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2013, 11:46:11 PM »
ReplyReply

:/ I've used an EVF on an old bridge camera (Fuji S5200), borrowed a Nikon V1, and been handed a few modern EVF Fujis. The new finders are good, but I doubt that a single battery is going to fare well for sports or event photography where one spends a lot of time looking through the viewfinder waiting for a particular moment. I've "started" (well, I guess I've been doing it for a few years) using live view on an SLR for focusing an 85 f/1.4 in low light because it *is* much better than trying to do that through a viewfinder (even with electronic rangefinder), but I definitely feel the battery drain, even though I focus once and then go back to regular "mirrored" shooting.

But you're right... I come from the split-prism era of viewfinders.

(Also, I thought EVFs, though smaller, still had similar power consumption to their large-sized LCD counterparts. Is this no longer true?)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 11:51:07 PM by jonathanlung » Logged
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2013, 02:30:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).

If only camera manufacturers would provide real time RAW histograms (which is something technically trivial), exposing with an EVF would be flawless and very simple for the RAW shooter.

Regards


Good points.  What I personally would prefer is an Optical View Finder with some diagnostics in the form of togglable in-finder heads up display, which some cameras come close to offering: live Raw histogram and blinkies.  A metering mode I would use often is one in which we could set the maximum number of Raw sensels blown, similar to the auto feature of some raw-converters.  And Ideally I'd also like to be able to point to a specific small area of the zoomable pre or post view to indicate that I do not want it to be blown, so please set the Raw clipping point just above those levels.  I'd even be willing to switch brands for these features, aotbe (are you listening stodgy manufacturers?).

As to why in 2013 with more than 11 stops of PDR we still do not have Raw histograms and blinkies from the OOC image remains an unsolved mystery to me.  We've been asking this for years and it only takes the will to implement it in firmware.  We could have it tomorrow if vendors woke up.  Or am I overlooking some technical difficulty?

Jack
Logged
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 538


« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2013, 04:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Video viewfinders always lag behind of what is really happening. For many kinds of shooting it is unacceptable. Optical for me most of the time, thank you. For still lives and landscape EVF is fine, for action, no.
Logged
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1303



WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2013, 03:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

As to why in 2013 with more than 11 stops of PDR we still do not have Raw histograms and blinkies from the OOC image remains an unsolved mystery to me.  We've been asking this for years and it only takes the will to implement it in firmware.  We could have it tomorrow if vendors woke up.  Or am I overlooking some technical difficulty?

What you ask for is technically trivial (in fact to obtain the JPEG histogram you need to process the RAW file first, to obtain the RAW histogram you just need to plot the RAW numbers in the appropiate scale), but perhaps difficult to explain to non-advanced users. 4 years ago this was already discussed in LL (Camera manufacturers PLEASE: when RAW histograms and an ETTR mode? ), there are not many reasons to be optimistic about it.
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1115


« Reply #30 on: April 19, 2013, 05:36:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Then they can cut costs in the camera by replacing the traditional metering system with RAW histogram and % overexposing (for specular highlights like shiny chrome). You would always get proper ETTR exposures. Brackets would be +/- % brightness from that point.
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 19, 2013, 06:32:29 PM »
ReplyReply

At my age I need reading glasses and one thing i really like about the EVF is that you can see the EVF sharp looking at infinity. So i do not need reading glasses to see everything sharp. ( the problem i do have if i look on the back screen)
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2013, 08:10:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I am surprised on how many of you like the EVF. The only reason I can find for people preferring an OVF over an EVF is just because they are used to it for ages. Just to mention exposure, I cannot think of a newbie in photography preferring an obsolete Metering + Post-visualization scheme (OVF) over a real time Pre-visualization scheme (EVF).
...


No, the reason why some prefer OVF is because they tried it, and its simply better for photography. Please bear in mind that photography is more than having a machine producing a file, its about seeing a picture and being able to create a photo. The small matter of metering and correct exposure is utter trivial compared to having a tool that lets you see and compose a photo. On this regard the EVFs are still a few light-years behind OVFs, but we can always hope  Cheesy.

The mark of a newbie is to believe that the camera makes a good photo, instead of realizing that most modern camera's are in fact filters between a good photo and the photographer. An OVF filters less, an EVF more.

Still, I don't hate the EVF on my NEX-7, its simply a much poorer photographic tool in most of my photographic situations than a M or RD-1.
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2013, 11:57:14 AM »
ReplyReply

No, the reason why some prefer OVF is because they tried it, and its simply better for photography.

For the record, I disagree your generalization.

I do feel that for sports or fast moving photography, an OVF is preferable. I also am sympathetic to those people who say they find using an OVF to be a more pleasant experience. However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher than with my Nikon or Pentax DSLRs using an OVF. I'd say with the EVF I usually get 90% + critically focused images vs. 70-80% with an OVF, which I consider to be a significant difference. Plus, with the eye level histogram in the EVF, my exposures are much more accurate.
Logged
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2013, 03:27:41 PM »
ReplyReply

For the record, I disagree your generalization.

I do feel that for sports or fast moving photography, an OVF is preferable. I also am sympathetic to those people who say they find using an OVF to be a more pleasant experience. However, for subjects that are not moving quickly I find the EVF allows me to get a better photograph if only for the reason that it allows more precise focus. The percentage of critically focused images that I get using an EVF and a combination of magnified view and focus peaking is significantly higher than with my Nikon or Pentax DSLRs using an OVF. I'd say with the EVF I usually get 90% + critically focused images vs. 70-80% with an OVF, which I consider to be a significant difference. Plus, with the eye level histogram in the EVF, my exposures are much more accurate.

Again, focus is but one issue for creating a photo. But: All subjective and objective testing I have seen from the new M concludes that the OVF RF is by far more acurate than focus by EVF peaking/zoom for wides to short tele. As you might know the M have both, so its fairly easy to compare.
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2013, 03:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, focus is but one issue for creating a photo. But: All subjective and objective testing I have seen from the new M concludes that the OVF RF is by far more acurate than focus by EVF peaking/zoom for wides to short tele. As you might know the M have both, so its fairly easy to compare.

The EVF helps with both focus and exposure as I mentioned above.

I've never tried focusing the new M (I didn't realize it has focus peaking). I'm not sure who said the RF is more accurate than an EVF, but I don't believe it. I have had Katz Eye split prism focus screens installed and checked by Katz Eye on my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, which I've used for several years. there is no way the split prism focus screens are as accurate as the EVF on my NEX 7.

It's pretty common to have a rangefinder camera or lens get out of calibration and you will never know it until you look at the photos, in which case it may be too late. With the EVF, you are seeing what the sensor is "seeing." I don't understand how a rangefinder could be more accurate. This is why so many commentators and users wanted Leica to add live view.

Logged
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2013, 10:04:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The EVF helps with both focus and exposure as I mentioned above.

I've never tried focusing the new M (I didn't realize it has focus peaking). I'm not sure who said the RF is more accurate than an EVF, but I don't believe it. I have had Katz Eye split prism focus screens installed and checked by Katz Eye on my Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, which I've used for several years. there is no way the split prism focus screens are as accurate as the EVF on my NEX 7.

It's pretty common to have a rangefinder camera or lens get out of calibration and you will never know it until you look at the photos, in which case it may be too late. With the EVF, you are seeing what the sensor is "seeing." I don't understand how a rangefinder could be more accurate. This is why so many commentators and users wanted Leica to add live view.



Enjoy:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/i_will_not_buy_that_camera_i_promise.shtml
"On a lark, I decided to compare my focus through the EVF with focusing using the rangefinder. My jaw dropped.  The rangefinder was definitely more accurate and more sensitive to very small movements of the focusing ring. I was also reaching the correct focus point much faster.

I remember Leica many years ago claiming that rangefinder focusing was significantly more accurate than focusing on the screen of an SLR. Well folks, it turns out that focusing with the M rangefinder is definitely more accurate than focusing through the EVF even at high magnification with peaking.  It also has the added advantage that unlike the EVF, it is not affected by the lens aperture."

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/4/the-m-typ-240---leicas-very-grown-up-new-baby-reviewed
"The rangefinder itself seems to have been redesigned and, with my lenses at least, is a great deal more accurate and reliable than on my previous M bodies. So much so, in fact, that for now at least (time will tell if it 'drifts' as the older design was liable to do) I prefer to use the rangefinder rather than the EVF for critical focus. Really. I ran a test with the camera on a tripod and a target at intermediate distance and with each of my six lenses (including an F1 Noctilux) and wide open, I focussed three frames with the RF and three with the EVF and it got every single shot perfect with the RF, whereas the EVF scored two shots out of 18 noticeably 'off'. Kudos to the rangefinder"

and:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2011/20110302_3-RangefinderFocusing.html
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2013, 11:50:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Alf, like I said, I've never used the new M and am not interested in buying one. Maybe there is something to the "redesign" of the rangefinder that makes it more accurate than an EVF, but I still find that hard to believe despite the testimonials for obvious reasons. What's your suggestion for someone who doesn't want to spend $7,000 on a camera body and who wants to be comfortable that they can nail focus 90%+?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5164


« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2013, 03:22:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Firstly, for most of us, the only viable alternative is the TTL OVF of an SLR, not rangefinder focusing. So those links seem to be a doubly irrelevant comparison of rangefinder OVF (instead of SLR OVF) to what seems to be a rather poor first effort at live view implementation from Leica rather than comparing to the current state of the art (probably Olympus or Panasonic or Sony NEX.)

On to the links:

1. This is not so much a review as a love letter, so no further comment.

2. I have to think that the problem is some combination of user inexperience with live view focusing and/or serious deficiencies in Leica's implementation.
Partly because the magnified live view at a selected focusing point can show a level of detail beyond what the human eye can resolve in an OVF and I have had no such problems with EVF focusing on my E-M5; partly because of that review's numerous criticisms of Leica's live view implementation:
Quote
... the EVF merely chooses the best focus at each aperture on centre, thereby shifting the field of focus as the lens exhibits slight focus shift.
...
 there are some quite 'first generation' touches to it that annoy. Firstly, you can only focus on the central point. There's simply no option to move the focus zone around the scene. ... the over/under exposure 'blinkie' warnings do not display after taking the shot. ... the focus peaking 'shimmer' is too often very hard to see. Others have noted the same.
...
The LCD suffers the same problem as the EVF when it comes to the inability to move the focus point around the screen. I'm sure there's a good reason why they couldn't do this but really, it is a waste of the potential of Live View.
By the way, if he is using focus peaking for precise manual focus, he is using wrong tool, in my opinion.

3. is a pay site cannot read, but anyway from the title it is just about RF focusing on the M9, not a comparison to live view focusing.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 03:24:08 PM by BJL » Logged
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129


« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2013, 05:25:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Alf, like I said, I've never used the new M and am not interested in buying one. Maybe there is something to the "redesign" of the rangefinder that makes it more accurate than an EVF, but I still find that hard to believe despite the testimonials for obvious reasons. What's your suggestion for someone who doesn't want to spend $7,000 on a camera body and who wants to be comfortable that they can nail focus 90%+?
Jeff, I would recommend a NEX and suggest that they would have to live with a limited VF and handling but otherwise great IQ. But I was under the impression that we were discussing OVF versus EVF, and is simply saying that some OVFs like the RS IMO have great photographic qualities. The same goes for OVFs from top of the line FF DSLRs and 30 year old SLRs that imo are much better for seing a photo. Look through a OM-2 and then try seeing the same through a NEX-7. For me its a big paradox that most of the camera makers are not prioritizing the ability for us to see what we are photographing.

Btw; I have used NEX 5n and are now using NEX-7 as well as M9. The NEXs are great cameraes except for VF and manual handling. Their VFs are not good for streat, nightscapes and snowscapes. In paricular the last is a big shortcoming living in an area that are covered by snow several months a year  Smiley
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad