Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: EVF magnification beats most DSLRs OVF with the Olympus VF-4  (Read 20865 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5540



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 16, 2013, 10:07:20 PM »
ReplyReply

...you are too biased towards that kind of device to objectively judge in the OVF vs EVF debate.

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am biased. I'll let you then "objectively judge." I made a single observation, that the image of moving objects is jittery... Are you objectively disputing it?

Besides, I did not realize we are having an OVF versus EVF debate, especially not one that is to be "objectively judged," the result of which then should be a binding verdict in favor of one or the other!? It's been noted several times, by several posters, that all comes down to personal preferences. I expressed mine. I have no problem that you apparently have a love affair with yours.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2013, 11:54:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I made a single observation, that the image of moving objects is jittery...

NO,  YOU DID NOT !

You made a somewhat humorous, light-hearted comment about EVF's and got an equally, if not more, humorous riposte. It wasn't personal in any way - but you just HAD to turn this into another confused ruckus over a perceived (non-existant) personal slight.

In case you've forgotten, part of your original HUMOROUS post:
"
HOLY CRAP!l!
No, I seriously mean  HOLY FREAKING CRAP!
They should come with a Surgeon General warning! If I suffered from seziours, .. "
"
And by the way 'seziours', is spelt seizures ..
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2013, 03:02:02 AM »
ReplyReply

This forum could argue about air.

Slobodan has a right to not like a evf and if he thinks it's jittery then fine, for him it is.

Sloboda is quite outspoken and usually that's refreshing, though I still don't see where the argument is.

The only vote that counts is with your wallet.  If you like traditional ov finders there are still about 12 billion of them new, another 12 billion laying around used. 

If you like the new evf, then they're making them better every day.

What I like is the options, what I loathe is the complex menus.   

Now I briefly looked at the fuji, it didn't bother me, though it wasn't as good as some others. 

What I like about the fuji is the file, it's pretty good for a cmos sensor what I don't like about the fuji is the limited lenses.

I'm still a little bit in love with the 4.3's systems.  The gh3 is amazing when used properly, the Olympus is built like a fine watch.

The file quality from both is very good, better than anyone would have expected from any digital camera under $7000 even a few years ago.

We've been running thousands of files in still and video form the gh3's the olympus, the RED 1's and honestly the panasonic is so good it's kind of scary.

I mean, a $1,000 camera should not be close to a $6,000 1dx or a $22,000 RED, but the GH3 is.

Anyway sorry to get off topic, but the one thing I really wish the makers could figure out is how to simplify the menus.  They are so deep and complicated (also can be useful) that it takes forever to learn the camera.

The RED is simple compared to an OMD. 

The problem with all of the settings is you never know exactly how a camera will react (including the viewfinder and the file) until you shoot a certain scenario with it, then you find out the good, or  . . . the bad.

This wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't 500 combinations of options.

One other thing.

Slobodan, If you think about it, (and I grew up with traditional cameras, from 8x10 on down) what would anyone have given in the film years to have an 8x10 ground glass (ok lcd) that had the fidelity of a Ipad retinia and was right side up?

Think about how cool that would have been?

IMO

BC
Logged

Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1274



WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2013, 05:02:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok, let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am biased. I'll let you then "objectively judge." I made a single observation, that the image of moving objects is jittery... Are you objectively disputing it?

I was exclusively commenting the 40 years bla bla bla... argument here.

Regarding jittery, that is actually one of the weaknesses of EVF's and I value your impression about it. And yes, I think it's a OVF vs EVF debate, and I find it very interesting as long as there is no clear winner yet.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5540



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2013, 07:35:07 AM »
ReplyReply

... And by the way 'seziours', is spelt seizures ...

Thanks. Looks like my spellchecker got one of its own Smiley

Or perhaps I was still not seeing clearly, after looking through too many jittery EVFs that afternoon Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5540



WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2013, 07:52:14 AM »
ReplyReply

... If you like the new evf, then they're making them better every day...

Indeed, and the VF-4 is already better than some from just months ago.

Now, I did find one feature that I think is outstanding. It is probably limited to Olympus, but the ability to not only recognize faces, but to focus on eye is truly helpful. And not just any eye, but the one closest to camera, as it should be. And, as you move away from the subject, the camera returns to face detection automatically. Truly amazing.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2013, 10:16:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I really like my Nex6 EVF. Sony will be approaching perfection soon in this department. I truly enjoy this small camera fitted with an EVF but I also love my 6D OVF. The difference between both systems and its advantages and disadvantages depends on the photog, the kind of work and the camera. I just hope we have the choice for years to come.
Eduardo
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 17, 2013, 02:10:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed, and the VF-4 is already better than some from just months ago.

Now, I did find one feature that I think is outstanding. It is probably limited to Olympus, but the ability to not only recognize faces, but to focus on eye is truly helpful. And not just any eye, but the one closest to camera, as it should be. And, as you move away from the subject, the camera returns to face detection automatically. Truly amazing.

Slobodan,

I think, who knows when, you'll eventually find that evf's give you more than you could ever get traditionally with an optical viewfinder.   Waist level, zoom in for focus, smooth view, see color changes even maybe (let's hope) real in camera view calibration to match the computer.

Understand I love the look of a ground glass (or plastic) or I did, but with digital optical finders just got too hard to focus, too something that I can't explain.   

You should really try a gh3 in the real world.    In testing a gh3 and the omd (stills) I was positive that the file was 1/2 that of a 1dx.  In side by side real world work at medium to high iso, I am positive the difference is less than 10% if that.

Now I shoot people that move and a lot on location, so that changes the equation, but I just don't see much difference, other than in your head you gotta remember a 17 is a 35 a 25 is a 50 etc. etc.

You also have to keep the thought that F8 is F4, F3.5 is F2. 

Other than that these little cameras are pretty amazing.

IMO

BC
Logged

Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2013, 02:53:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding articulating displays or view finders, there is one thing that baffles me , and I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Personally, I find integrated, articulating electronic displays a great composition and shooting tool , it's even my favourite kind of finder solution by far .

I know the advantages of different finder systems fairly well, if I say so myself, I've used them all and still do, but ever since my Canon G3 I love tilting displays more than anything else .
There are limitations for certain purposes, and personal preferences , and by no means do I suggest it's the best tool for everyone .

What I don't get, and it bothers me to no end, is why many digital cameras with tilting screens only allow display movement for horizontal format shooting .
Did I miss the memo about portrait format being dead ?
I understand horizontal works best for video, and everyone shooting mainly for the web/display viewing; but who decided all the high-end MFT and APS-C mirrorless cameras should have that limitation for general still photography ?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2013, 06:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Regarding articulating displays or view finders, there is one thing that baffles me , and I'd be interested in your thoughts.
...
What I don't get, and it bothers me to no end, is why many digital cameras with tilting screens only allow display movement for horizontal format shooting .
A good question, since I sometime wish the rear screen of my E-M5 could be tilted on the other axis when I am taking "verticals". My guess it that it is a combination of two things:
1. Having articulation on two axes adds to bulk, so the pressure to keep these "CSC" bodies compact favors one-axis-only hinging, and horizontals are a lot more common than verticals, so hinging long-edge--only wins.
2. Maybe the articulated screens are overall used far more for video than stills, with stills more often done with the "one-eyed" EVF (you and I notwithstanding), which increases the dominance of horizontal usage of the "two-eyed" rear screen mode.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2013, 07:45:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan ,

I was thinking about your aversion to EVF's and two thoughts came to mind.

Firstly, as far as I know, it's impossible to have a flicker-free electronic display. Even from the very first CRT's through to todays LCD and LED  tv's and monitors, flicker, in some form, was always there. Today it's mainly governed by the refresh rate which, in the case of tv,  has risen from 60 Mhz to over 240Mhz in some models. Dealing with movement, whether fast motion or panning, referred to as 'motion blur', is minimised by using a technique called 'frame insertion'. How all this relates to the issues camera makers face with EVF's beats me but ..

Secondly, in the case of the Fujifilm XE-1, I was surprised.  I'm no techie but the X-E1 has one of the highest resolution EVF's, a 2,360k LED whilst the rear screen is only a 460k LCD. I don't know whether the model you saw had the latest firmware, but last month Fuji updated their firmware to include focus peaking which you can turn on and off. When on, it seems more like an acute shimmer than a simple flicker- not so good for simple viewing but, IMO, great for manual focusing. I haven't compared many other EVF's but as far as I'm concerned, it's God-sent when it comes to critical manual focus, shallow dof,  and with either the 3x or 10x zoom.

How this compares to the Olympus, and the new Oly in particular, I'll leave to others to comment on.

Just my 2 cents
M



..  and I find it very interesting as long as there is no clear winner yet.

I suspect there will be no clear winner for some time yet. It surely depends on your usage.
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2013, 09:14:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Understand I love the look of a ground glass (or plastic) or I did, but with digital optical finders just got too hard to focus, too something that I can't explain.    

Combine a viewfinder optimized for autofocus and a narrower depth of focus of a sensor (vs. film) and it's easy to see how manual focus became so difficult.  An optical viewfinder optimized for manual focus is much easier to use than the (expletive deleted) viewfinders most of us have taken for granted.  Unless people vote with their currency of choice, those are the only viewfinders camera makers will sell us.

I'm using what must be the only DSLR with a viewfinder optimized for manual focus, my eyes are 61 years old, and I find it's easier to focus accurately with this camera than with an EVF with focus peaking.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2013, 02:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

What I don't get, and it bothers me to no end, is why many digital cameras with tilting screens only allow display movement for horizontal format shooting .
Did I miss the memo about portrait format being dead ?
I understand horizontal works best for video, and everyone shooting mainly for the web/display viewing; but who decided all the high-end MFT and APS-C mirrorless cameras should have that limitation for general still photography ?
I have tested the remote capture mode of my Sony RX100M2. Briefly, you enable wifi on the camera, launch an app on your Android/iOS phone, and suddenly your cellphone works as a "viewfinder" and shutter remote. Controls are very limited, the image occasionally stutters etc but I see this as being occasionally useful (images on concerts and similar).

-h
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2013, 05:55:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm using what must be the only DSLR with a viewfinder optimized for manual focus, my eyes are 61 years old, and I find it's easier to focus accurately with this camera than with an EVF with focus peaking.
Agreed that most modern OVFs are not ideal for manual focusing, in part due to being optimized for AF (as are the focusing mechanisms of most modern lenses, to make it worse).

But I am also curmudgeonly about focus peaking for still photography (I can see its attraction for video); my point of reference is manual focusing with magnified live view, be it squinting one-eyed through a "peep-hole" EVF or viewing two-eyed on the rear screen. Note that with 7x magnification, which is about "100% pixels" on the EM5, the image size on the rear screen is as big as if you were looking through a small window at the whole image being displayed on a 21" diagonal screen, of 16MP resolution. No ground glass ever gave an image as big and detailed as that, even in 14x11 view cameras.

Have you made that comparison to your OVF?
Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2013, 08:26:02 PM »
ReplyReply


my point of reference is manual focusing with magnified live view, be it squinting one-eyed through a "peep-hole" EVF or viewing two-eyed on the rear screen. Note that with 7x magnification, which is about "100% pixels" on the EM5, the image size on the rear screen is as big as if you were looking through a small window at the whole image being displayed on a 21" diagonal screen, of 16MP resolution. No ground glass ever gave an image as big and detailed as that, even in 14x11 view cameras.

Have you made that comparison to your OVF?

Nope.  I doubt magnified view would be useful in the situations I often encounter.  My subjects move quickly and can be anywhere in (or out of) the field of view, for example a crop from the lower-left corner of the image area:




or a full-frame image where the bird's head was stationary for a split-second:




or an image (cropped from horizontal) where the bird's head was caught while rising from pond level to full height:




focussed on the eye as the bird was dancing around the marsh (nearly full-frame):




This is a small example of what can be done with a good optical viewfinder optimized for manual focus.  With eyes that are well over 50 years old.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 10:11:23 AM by wildlightphoto » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2013, 10:16:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Nope.  I doubt magnified view would be useful in the situations I often encounter.  My subjects move quickly and can be anywhere in (or out of) the field of view, for example ...

This is a small example of what can be done with a good optical viewfinder optimized for manual focus.  With eyes that are well over 50 years old.
Douglas,

    those are wonderful photos, that I could not achieve with manual focus on any gear whatsoever!

And yes, the strategy of "enlarged view around a selected focus area" is not suited to fast-changing scenes; selecting an off-center magnification zone on the E-M5 takes me several seconds at best.

But let me look forward to what EVF technology can hopefully do for us, even if current implementations are not quite there yet. To focus quickly on a specific off-center feature like a bird's eye, we lose the focusing aids at the center of an OVF or the "magnify when focus ring is turned" mode of an EVF, so have to rely on judging the sharpness of the VF image itself (unless focus peaking can still help off-center; I have not tried it). So the main virtue we want is a large, sharp image -- something that has gone downhill in the transitions from high magnification OVFs designed for manual focus to the somewhat smaller OVF images of autofocus 35mm format SLRs and then to the even smaller OVF images of digital SLR's in the now-dominant "smaller-than-film" formats. Compared to that, my guess is that old manual focus SLR OVF are still the best, but the best of the new EVFs (like the Olympus VF-4 accessory EVF, and maybe the forthcoming Olympus OM-D E-M1) are about on par with the OVFs of 35mm format digital SLRs and ahead of the OVF's on the smaller mainstream format digital SLRs.

Since an EVF can be designed to give an image at any combination of size and brightness, regardless of sensor size, my hope is that some future EVFs will offer images at least as large as any OVF has ever offered. My guess is that this will never be a mainstream option even in 35mm format, since even digital SLRs all have OVF image sizes smaller than the best of the older manual focus OVFs, but there is hope that some high-end accessory EVFs could be targeted to this more specialized market.

Meanwhile, I wish that there were milder magnification options like 1.4x and 2x on the OM-D E-M5: that would greatly enhance manual focusing, giving an image bigger and more detailed than any SLR OVF ever did, while still covering most parts of the scene where I am likely to want to focus. And I want the option to keep an outline of the full scene around the magnified image, so I can still check the overall framing at the same time!


P. S. Here is how I use magnified live view to focus manually on an off-center subject; the traditionalists will probably not like it!
With appropriate settings in advance:
1. use the rear screen initially, and select the focus area by touching it on the screen
2. press the "magnify" button (and swap to the EVF if desired)
3. focus manually, on the magnified view of the selected region
4. if needed, touch the magnify button again to return to the overall view.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 11:23:29 AM by BJL » Logged
wildlightphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 610


« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2013, 02:14:47 PM »
ReplyReply


But let me look forward to what EVF technology can hopefully do for us, even if current implementations are not quite there yet. To focus quickly on a specific off-center feature like a bird's eye, we lose the focusing aids at the center of an OVF or the "magnify when focus ring is turned" mode of an EVF, so have to rely on judging the sharpness of the VF image itself (unless focus peaking can still help off-center; I have not tried it). So the main virtue we want is a large, sharp image -- something that has gone downhill in the transitions from high magnification OVFs designed for manual focus to the somewhat smaller OVF images of autofocus 35mm format SLRs and then to the even smaller OVF images of digital SLR's in the now-dominant "smaller-than-film" formats. Compared to that, my guess is that old manual focus SLR OVF are still the best, but the best of the new EVFs (like the Olympus VF-4 accessory EVF, and maybe the forthcoming Olympus OM-D E-M1) are about on par with the OVFs of 35mm format digital SLRs and ahead of the OVF's on the smaller mainstream format digital SLRs.

Since an EVF can be designed to give an image at any combination of size and brightness, regardless of sensor size, my hope is that some future EVFs will offer images at least as large as any OVF has ever offered. My guess is that this will never be a mainstream option even in 35mm format, since even digital SLRs all have OVF image sizes smaller than the best of the older manual focus OVFs, but there is hope that some high-end accessory EVFs could be targeted to this more specialized market.

Yes I am hopeful that future developments in EVF technology will bring everything you suggest and more to the market.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad