Luminous Landscape is one of my favorite websites and It’s always interesting to read their Sony reviews. They just posted a Sony A99 field review (Click here to read it). LL really likes the new features and quality of the camera “The A99 is a camera geek’s wet dream come to life.” and also writes that “Clearly noise isn’t an issue up to and including ISO 1600. From there to and including ISO 6400 a bit of noise reduction will produce highly acceptable images for most applications.“.
But they have on major doubt. It’s the use of an electronic Viewfinder on a Full frame camera. Read:
“has the recent development of very good on-sensor contrast detection AF, and now from Sony on-sensor phase detection AF, not rendered the whole translucent mirror technology somewhat redundant? Maybe not today, but in a year or two almost certainly.” and “But one of the key advantages, especially to Pros and advanced amateurs who are familiar either with full frame DSLRs of the past decade, or film-based cameras prior, is the large and bright view possible though a mirror reflex with a prism. Shadow areas are open rather than black holes, colours are accurate and natural, fine details are visible, and one can see and focus and compose even with the camera turned off. These are significant advantages, and for many experienced photographers are among the main raison d’etre for appreciating what full-frame has to offer.As good as it is, the Sony EVF just can’t compete in terms of realistic contrast, brightness and overall clarity to a full frame glass prism viewfinder.”
While the use of EVF makes sense on mirrorless cameras (for the sake of compactness) and on APS-C cameras (their optical viewfinder is very small anyway) they don’t find any reason to have it on FF. Let us know what you think about this:
[poll id=”127″]
—
Sony preorder list:
A99 body Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Jessops, Wex UK, Wex Germany, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
A99 with kit lens links Alphacameradeals.
RX1 Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK ,Wex Germany and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-6 body Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK, Wex Germany Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-6 with kit lens Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Jessops, Wex Uk ,Wex Germany and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-VG900 Amazon, BHphoto, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, Wex Uk and more links at Alphacameradeals.
NEX-VG30 Adorama, Amazon, BHphoto, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony E-mount 16-50mm Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals .
Sony E-mount 35mm Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony E-mount 10-18mm Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Wex UK, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH, and more links at Alphacameradeals.
Sony A-mount 300mm f/2.8 Amazon, BHphoto, Sonystore DE–UK–FR–IT–ES–NL–SE–FI–CH.
153 Responses
First! Hehehe
Cock
Frank wants cock
Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
I would have preferred a better EVF than the one that is used, but no OVF.
Personaly I love the EVF and despite some misgivings I don’t mind having it on all of my cameras. But I can’t say the same thing about that SLT mirror.
Wow, they went out of their way to extol the virtues of an OVF, didn’t they? Man, I can’t count the number of times I looked through my camera and actually zoomed the lens and framed the shot without the camera on, just to save the battery.
Oh wait…yes I can…ZERO. NEVER.
Tilting at windmills…
Haha, +1,000.
I can, however, count on many hands the times when I thought I had a perfectly exposed shot using the OVF but alas it wasn’t! Or the many times I looked through the OVF and saw, erm, nothing but blackness!
In any case, this argument is a bit pointless. Sony has committed to EVF now. We may as well sit here and lament the loss of the cathode ray TV!
How about tracking through an EVF and upon seeing that image you took the shot and thought you had but don’t. I’ve been experiencing this more often than before because of the inherent laggy nature of EVFs.
Don’t get me wrong, I love using my EVF, which provides so many good things and I no longer have a DSLR. However, some aspects are not there yet. Yes, most EVF has the resolution, but response time (lag), framerate (fps) and contrast ratio (DR) need a bit of work. In that vein, I agree with the article that out of all the EVIL cameras I’ve tried, the E-M5 has the nicest EVF to use. Sony seem to have focus mainly on resolution.
Anyway, OVF may have some advantages still but it’s a dead end. EVF, even with its deficiencies, is good enough now and will only get better (just like flat screens).
Precisely my thoughts! I tried the a77 at the Sony store a few days ago and found that though the EVF image wasn’t as pleasant or natural as the OVF on my a900, the advantage of having a live histogram, real time white balance, no mirror slap or lag, far outweigh the discomfort.
I used a D600 one week. the liveview mode is so crappy and noisy that he made me laugh when he was complaning about the lag time going from EVF to LCD.
What about the NIkon ? you need to press the liveview button and after some mirror slap noises you see the image, wahou the AF is so slow on the Nikon !
The OVF is good to look in but how control the exposition the WB and the final image looking ?
humm he did not speak about focus peaking that make life so easy when you need to focus on a manaul lens or even better in Macro mode.
the funny thing he sais I love is that he can use OVF when the camera is off … well so a fantastic feature but what for ?? 😉
In MF mode, actually Nikon features something called “focus navigator” and “focus confirmation”. A camera will tell you whether the target point is in focus. If not, it will navigate (like a missile) you how to make it be in focus. For many many years, this fuction works great and nobody has an issue about its performance. I think Luminious has not point to mention about it.
Manual Focus? Yawn…. Let me know when it can AF like a Sony…
Umm? No sure what you mean. I jumped from Sony dlsr to D800 and realized it myself that Nikon’s AF outperforms Sony’s in terms of both speed and accuracy indeed.
You aren’t sure what I mean because you haven’t read the comments.
DSLR? comparing a 3 year old camera to a new camera? you don’t say?
• OVF and EVF both have its advantages….Sony should keep one very high end OVF DSLR focusing on Still photographer (and not video) in their line up to satisfy those photographers who can’t accept EVF (yet).
It might not sell very well (they can charge a premium on the OVF offering to balance things up), but will make people stay with Alpha mount (and not moving to Canon and Nikon) until EVF technology evolves to the point that it becomes acceptable even to these people.
EVF technology will evolve every year and most likely will be good enough in 2-3 years so there is no reason to develop OVF model
I agree EVF will surpass OVF in the next few years. But when there is over 40% of users (from current poll result) is still asking for OVF, Sony better keep it for the time being.
No doubt EVF will become better than OVF in the future, just not everyone is ready to embrace the new tech at this stage.
Bringing out an OVF model is just to make people remain in A mount for the time being while the technology matures (so maybe one last OVF from Sony is required). Once a user moves to a different mount and purchase a collection of lens, it would be difficult for them to switch back to Sony.
For APS-C people still can buy “new” A580 – IQ is same as A57. For FF – yes, no alternative. But if Sony would release A900 mark 2 – this would kill A99 sales.
Hasselblah can dive into that niche.
Put in a Swarovski mirror and charge $10.000
I second that.
Although I see some advantages on my A77’s EVF at low light shooting (that I can actually see something), I totally mis the brightness and clarity of a excellent OVF at daylight conditions.
The EVF’s image always looks desaturated and flat, comparing to the final image or even to the LCD display on the back. It’s just that you see the object in that millisecond of the shot (How are the eyes? Did someone ran into the picture? Did someone look stupid?). No color reference, no brightness reference, no contrast reference … That all works much better on a OVF. That’s why I’ll rather buy a Sony A99+ with OVF. And I totally don’t care about video option. Go, buy yourself a video camera but don’t use and alter our beloved photo cameras! 😉
Agreed with Luminious landscape, EVF is the future, not for today. It needs to be improved a lot more. That’s why I made a decision to skip A99 and invest in D600 instead. Another interesting point is that Luminous Landscape actually mentioned that among A99, A900, Sony NEX-7, Olympus OM-D and Olympus E-X1, the EVF of OMD E-M5 is the best due to its clarify and refresh rate, even though EVF’s E-M5 has lower resolution.
Au revoir
A900 has an OVF not an EVF
When contrast detection coupled with on sensor af gives competitive speeds compared to regular phase detection, the days of translucent mirrors is numbered. but that doesn’t mean one ought to put a regular pentaprism back. it just means there will be a lot of air inside that mirror box.
So a camera with OVF will be something purists buy. A bit like the ones that buy vinyl records. While the masses will find EVF to be superior.
I went from A to E mount just because i wanted to stay ahead of this development. Plus I didn’t need the bulk.
This is my thought process as well, if someone truly believes that EVF’s are the future, then I really don’t see what the point of the A-Mount is. In 2 or 3 years they only thing the A-Mount could hypothetically offer over the E-Mount is an optical viewfinder, and they’ve abandoned those. In another generation or two the translucent mirror won’t be needed, at which point the A-Mount will be nothing more than a bloated mirrorless mount. Sony should create an a-77 size E-Mount body and sell it with the A-Mount adapter to start transitioning people over.
Ummmm. Doesn’t NEX V900 do that exactly? It is just WAAAAY over on the video-side of these photo-video devices…
EVF is one of the main reasons why I bought my Sony Alpha A55, in addition to its high quality image sensor and a few other creative features of Sony! I will never buy a DSL(R)-like camera without EVF!
I want to see how the camera sees the world, with exposure, white balance, DOF and more in my viewfinder, not how my human eye can see the world better than the camera in an optical viewfinder!
There are many more PROS for an EVF and of the SLT-technology of Sony Alpha…
Yeah.. I totally agree with you. EVF let you know what camera actually see not what we see, have you every notice yourself that you have to check what you get on LCD every time after took a picture, with EVF I have no need to do that anymore 😉
Yesterday when I was in a nice wild nature area photographing a view hard to choose the exposure for, giving the feeling of what I saw, I discovered a new advantage with the EVF!
I adjusted the exposure compensation with both my eyes open (or switched rapidly between the two eyes), thus I saw the real world with one eye and how the camera would capture it with the eye looking into the EVF – and then it was very easy to get the image captured as I wanted it!
The trial and error method for the exposure compensation via an OVF seems so old fashioned…
You learn to know your camera and its OFV, says OVF entusiasts, but in my opinion it is much easier to learn the much smaller a difference between what you see in the EVF and how the captured image of the camera will look like! And I think the small difference between the EVF and the captured image is more consistent too!
And if I have a few more shades in the shadows in the captured images than I see in my EVF it’s much easier for me to live with, than if I see much more shades in an OVF than I get in the captured image!
I agree with what LL says, up to a point. They should have perhaps gone for the OVF and also added the VF-2 from Olympus as an option. It’s good enough for Leica, and Sony & Olympus are now joined at the hip apparently.
But they didn’t, and that’s fine. As Michael also says, anyone who comes to the A99 from the mirrorless world won’t notice any problem. It may be a problem for those coming from a FF DSLR, used to an OVF, but how many of that group are actually going to buy this camera anyway, even if it did have an OVF? This camera will be mainly aimed at upgraders from smaller sensor MILC’s.
Sony have never been shy about throwing maximum technology at anything. Don’t expect them to start now!
“thus I saw the real world with one eye and how the camera would capture it with the eye looking into the EVF – and then it was very easy to get the image captured as I wanted it!”
– I use that nearly all the time with longer focal lenses. Main reason is that you have wider field of view, so you can by far more easily pick targets, and rarely miss important moments in the field.
Only problem is that it requires some training. And that’s regardless if you use EVF or OVF.
Yes, I loved my A55 and its EVF too. The A55 was the first SLR I used and I thought it was great and I didn’t see what the problem was with the EVF. Right up until I bought an A900. Michael makes the point that compared to its competitors in the APS-C segment, the A55 EVF is excellent. Compared to the A900 OVF, it is not. I didn’t realise just what a difference it makes. After some months of use my wife and I decided to sell the A900…but we sold the A55 instead. The OVF was definitely part of the reason. Sorry to say that as I am heavily-invested in Sony lenses, but until the EVFs improve significantly beyond what is in the A77/A99 (which they will of course) then I’ll stick with my A900. Unlikely that I’ll move systems though just because of lens cost.
He forgot to mention the weight savings involved. Lugging around a A900 all day wasn’t too fun.
sorry but i wont touch an OVF.. to me its the same relic like having a film camera in the digital age, i leave it to those enthusiastic about it, or hipsters 😉 and i dont see why they would complain, i wish there was as big a choice of EVF Pro cameras out there as there is with OVF´s. i loved the EVF since my very first camera, ages ago (Sony Mavica D770)
The translucent mirror is a dead end road. With the advancements in on-sensor phase detect and new improvements in contrast detection, Sony’s mirror will be a thing of the past in 2-3 years tops.
Now EVF? Sure…I’m confident that its the future.
We can debate how much light is deflected away from the primary image sensor. But really, that mirror won’t be worth ANY light loss.
The NEX9 will outperform the A99 if Sony allows it to.
+1 Agreed. My only fear is that Sony will be Sony and release a NEX 9 with a substandard amount of functionality.
Personally, I am not waiting for a NEX 9. I’m waiting for an A9 – a Mirrorless Alpha mount in the same full sized body. I can’t understand why they would put so much R&D into the A99 only to stick it with an SLT mirror.
Will any of your lenses be worth a .5 stop loss? MANY do AT LEAST that. I stopped checking out dyxum because of the willful blindness they have against SLT compared to so many of their near & dear lenses.
If you want to see how much light your lenses gobble-up, got to dxomark.com. They publish t-stop vs f-stop for all lenses. Many of those fabulous f/1.4 lenses drop much more than 0.5 stop. Most zooms drop at least that much.
It is a clear cognitive dissonance to rage against SLT light-loss when it is so easily tolerated in other parts of the equipment list.
FWIW, cognitive dissonance is BAAAAAD.
Yes, f-stops and t-stops are not equivalent. But why do you want to lose additional light on top of that? Yes, perhaps half a stop of light is lost through reflection, so my f/1.4 lens only transmits as much light as a theoretically perfect f/1.7 lens. But why do I want to lose even more light and make it (effectively) a f/2.0 lens?
Simple primes perform well for a reason (fewer glass-air interfaces = less reflection = less light loss. Manufacturers put expensive coatings on lenses with a lot of elements to improve light transmission. And fast lenses are costlier for a reason. People will pay more for a f/1.4 lens than a f/1.7 lens, because they care about that difference.
Dxo says that Zeiss 16-80 drops more than a full fstop! Some other lenses do this, too. I am all-for preserving my precious light, but the sanctimonious horror expressed by many is just false bravado…
NEX-9 will be an APS-C sensor NEX-7 upgrade. If you want a FF Sony mirrorless get the VG900.
Clearly written by someone that is used to the OVF and has never spent any serious time using an EVF.
The Viewfinder needs to have the EVF extended out a bit with a larger seal for the eye, to shield out light. That’s about it.
My thoughts too. On the other hand it shows how stupid Sony camera development is (both NEX and α): half baked products without clear thought what they are doing.
The guy from Luminous Landscape owns a NEX-7 and has spent plenty of time using it, as well as other cameras with EVF’s. I think he goes a bit too far with his criticisms of the A99’s EVF, but I agree with his overall point. If I buy a camera with full frame SLR mount, then I want an optical viewfinder to be included. In an ideal world it would be a hybrid optical with an EVF option, similar to what Fuji does.
35mm SLR’s without optical viewfinders just don’t make sense to me. The entire point of those deep mounts is to make room for a large flapping mirror that directs light up to a big beautiful prism. Once all that stuff is removed you just have an oversized hollow box.
Using a Canon 5D and a Sony NEX 7, I almost always prefer the EVF over the OVF. Especially in dark areas, where even the “so bright, so wonderful, they should’ve sent a poet” viewfinder of 5D turns to a dark alley.
Also, if you’re using a Sony DSLT or a NEX with EVF, consider using it in the “SETTING EFFECT OFF” mode once in a while. You’ll see it has almost no delay.
What is “setting effect off”? I cannot find it on my NEX-5n.
On the A77 setting effect off switches off the effect of exposure in the EVF. It’s so you can use the EVF with studio flash, preventing a dark/black EVF in manual mode.
It’s supposed to be under the Setup(bottom row, right) menu, towards the top. It’ll always maintain 0EV brightness, won’t show the WB, DOF or anything. But it’ll always be bright. You’ll have to judge the exposure by looking at the metering, which is not a big deal. WB is not an issue for me since I usually shoot RAW.
THANKS!!!
I’ve had an A77 for about a year now, and I quite like the EVF on that, and it was a significant improvement over the OVF on my A350. However, I understand that the A99 EVF is essentially the same as the A77, and I can imagine that people used to a full frame OVF would find it lacking. I wonder if they would have had a different opinion if it was larger (or at least magnified so it looked larger).
I suspect that when Sony was considering whether to migrate their cameras from SLR to SLTs, the “viewfinder” was considered a big downside to the move. However the huge advantages of SLTs over SLRs (and perhaps the need to distinguish themselves from the other manufacturers) won the day. I equally think that OVF to EVF is a natural and inevitable transition for cameras, similar to the transition from film to digital. The early EVFs were barely useful. The current EVFs are probably equivalent to OVFs, and I am sure in a few years time, they will be much better. I would be surprised if in 10 years time, many cameras still used OVFs
Colin, I’d make it 5 years ( instead of 10 ) till most OVFs become to EVFs! The main reason I hardly compose a shot with the external LCD is due to the environment light intrusion. Today, having LV, many use bulky gadgets on top of the LCD to eliminate the stray light and enjoy a better preview of shot! IMHO, considering Sony’s superior LV and excellent OLED EVF the problem for some to adopt an EVF is mostly die-hard purism.
Nice review. But I guess I belong to the new gen of photographers, I would not change evf for ovf even if they paid me to do so. I do not need to see beautiful picture in OVF i want to see how it will look like when captured. I just bought big stopper recently, and it is amazing how i can preview my 30 sec shot with evf, no guessing, perfect exposures. So again, while I understand where they are coming from, I would not want ovf anymore. Even if it is as good as the one on a900. Evf makes me a better, more accurate photographer.
what does this review realy want to say? i´v been using evf for some months now on my a57 and even without oled viewfinder it brings so much more advantages than ovf. SLT Technology is the future
This was a terrible “FIELD REPORT”. What’s really reported was how the EVF under performed on location. Other than that it’s mostly a gloss over the new features with rants on EVF and a jab at the high ISO.
How about reporting the lack of vibration and loud noises when taking photos compared to A900?
Let me guess ‘isn’t that important for the type of shooting I do’. But neither is high ISO, yet:
“As soon as I got the camera I wanted to see its high ISO performance. This isn’t that important for the type of shooting I do but …”
“I have no beef with Sony’s translucent mirror technology.”
I think its a good review, as the author said, its his point of view and I think he articulated that incredibly well. He raises some interesting points as to why bother with the translucent and I believe that the next generation of full framed SLR’s wont bother with mirrors or “pellicle” (sp) love that word lol. The in sensor development and the EVF’s will move to another level where mirrors will finally come to end of life. Great article, still a big fan of EVF but cant fault the argument for those coming from 30 years of using a Mirror based viewfinder.
According to Luminous Landscape test, it’s surprised to know that, among A99, NEX7, E-M5, and X-E1, the EVF of E-M5 is the best in terms of clarify and refresh rate, even though E-M5’s EVF has lower resolution.
Think it was a very good field report. There will be other, more formal and pixel-peeping, REVIEWS to study.
Personally: I have yet to see a really great EVF. To me the Oly is the best current compromize. An Oly official hinted at improved EVF’s in about three years.
A bright, large, 100% OVF is aleays better with just one exception: When it (not the VF :- ) gets dark.
Think the coupling VF offer vs price is relevant: Either a lower price point as the pentaprism OVF is more expensive – or an OVF + EVF a’ la Leica.
Sony will not take market shares from CaNikon with the A99, but it is a great step forward for current Sonistas.
EVF is the future. EVF make you see the image seen by sensor, not a real image that you’ll never see in electronic format 😉
So EVF has more advantages over OVF.
I never come back to OVF.
a nice, beautiful, clear, noiseless image in the OVF doesn’t promise the same, or nearly the same output… saying about saving battery, i’m not sure how much energy saved when i use an OVF camera, which i have to try for several times, pressing shutter and playback to check my night scene, so that to get a satisfying exposure and so on, compare to using an EVF camera, which i only have to do it once, or maybe twice…
ok, i admit i’m a fresh bird…
For tripod mounted macro A77 is best tool, especially because of fixed (not slapping) mirror and LV focusing functions. Otherwise I don’t like EVF, however I vote for improved EVF rather than OVF.
I get so many positives from the A77 EVF over the OVF of the A700 that I owned that I’m not interested in going back. The EVF is the future and the technology will improve. Like a previous comment, I’d wish for a bigger screen, larger softer eyecup to keep out stray light with the EVF a little further away from the LCD.
WOW dinosaurs are not extinct afterall.
1. i had 2 ovf that take everywhere, i call them eyes, perfectly colors, realistic contrast, brightness and overall clarity, there are top tech fully automatic! now… for my imperfect sensor, i need an EVF to see how it see the world, and help it to get a better picture that can match what my 2 ovf see.
2. i actually think you are spot on, saying in 1 or 2 years translucent technology will be irrelevant, but the mirror will be also useless, i say it before and say it again, NEX is the future, ovf and mirror will follow film to the photo graveyard.
3. i understand canon and nikon users fear the change, same as old generation photographers, i truly do, my first dsrl was an a-33, i make the jump from my hx-1, when i was growing in dsrl world, the words canon and nikon always came up, and i was enjoying my alpha so much that i was desperate to upgrade, and lets be real, canon and nikon had cheaper lenses (in those days i dont understand why) so i go to the photo shop (note the space between words) and try the nikon, im not ashamed telling you now, that i need help, as i say i only used cybershots before and my alpha, i turn it on and was staring like idiot for 30 seconds to a black screen until the help come in and say me look at the ovf, it looked weird to me, i took a picture (it was little dark and the speed go 1+ second) and sudden i cant see a thing, and the sound and shake was new to me, i was frustated, and try not to look like a complet noob in the store, but men, i was shoting in dark literally, i put iso 100 1/200 and i keep saying wow still look clear, i was like “damn i will switch now” but then all pictures came black, i just cant understand why i look good pictures in the viewfinder and get good full black pictures, so i totally make the store lol when i say “hey, i think the camera is broken, dont work, i cant get any pictures”… then i learn about prism, ovf, mirror flip, etc after my face clear the embarased red look, and listen 15 minutes of nikon and canon tech (the nikon salesman say me the canon and nikon work the same, i truly never give it a try to a canon) i say ok, im getting it, took a few shots as far as i could with the ovf, then try the “live” if you can call that live, and then finally took some video… oh boy, until today i look at my cybershot and ask me how it can get better videos than a dslr nikon, the focus was a complete joke, ovf dead, resolution and quality so bad my cybershot put it in shame, i runaway after that, oh wait non before i discover all that “cheaper” lenses from canon and nikon, dont have af, or vr (steady shot), etc… yeah, you try to take a shot with an ovf with a lense that dont have vibration reduction, auto focus, yeah good luck.
so, i truly unerstand why a person who used only ovf feel uncomfortable after trying an evf, two sides of a coin.
Information overlay on EVF and the ‘sprit level’ are massive things I’d miss on an OVF. Constantly having to take my eye away and check the top or rear LCD would also be really annoying after living with my A77 EVF.
Is the only benefit of an OVF that your eye can see a ‘nicer’ image? Surely, what the sensor ‘sees’ is 1,000 times more important!!
I fully agree with you!
The “sprite level” in the EVF I first saw as a gimmick, but now it’s my best friend, which I not will be without!
And also the instant access in the EVF to the information I want is very nice!
I think there is no doubt that EVF is the way forward with all its advantages over OVF. The only question is when Sony should discontinue their OVF models? Is now an appropriate time?
With so many people voting for the OVF model, maybe is a bit pre-mature to discontinue it now?
I agree with Luminous landscape. There is nothing like a good OVF vs a very good EVF.
I had been shooting with the excellent A77 for over two months and though i liked using it, i was releaved to be back with my good ‘older’ D7000. And that viewfinder is relatively smaller even. It just works more ‘natural’.
For me the “what you see is what you get” argument is irrelvant. I want to see the real thing when i compose, a clear detailled image of the world around AKA the world through a glass PRISM and my skills will take care of the rest. I dont mind to press preview and check exposures for a second.
What your eyes see is nothing like the resulting image recorded by the limited sensor.
Whether you use an OVF, EVF, live-view or simply point the camera in the general direction and press the shutter, what is being recorded is not what your eyes see.
It is irrelevant what method you use to compose an image because that is all it is, a method to COMPOSE THE IMAGE.
By-the-way, my mate had the D7000 and hates the OVF compared to what I showed him on my A77.
agree, agree… i sad agree? ;D
@Iagree: So your whole argument in favour of the OVF is that you want to see the world through a glass prism? Do you not think that’s a bit of a weak point? And I assume your superior photographic skills also extend to being able to both look directly into the sun and also seeing in the dark.
Man, you are one impressive photographer. I wish you good luck!
Hopefully in the future their will be no need to debate EVF vs OVF because the EVF tech will close the gap between it and the advantages of the OVF. Until then how about a hybrid viewfinder? Best of both worlds.
Sony should continue building OVF models (A580 and A850) side by side to SLT and NEX, so everybody can buy what he likes or was used to! No honest person asked for totally dropping OVF even if he planed to give SLT or NEX a try. And no one can really explain me what Sony would have lost if they continued the OVF models in addition to the recent models !?
Well if a user wants an OVF they can get a Canon, Nikon or Pentax. It’s not as though there isn’t plenty of OVF cameras in the market.
Sony aren’t going to make OVF cameras, this was obvious a year ago when the A77 was released. Move forwards, not backwards.
don’t forget those which have bought ~10 A-mount lenses over the last 5 years. Replacing body A580 by 650D or D7000 is not the point that hurts most 😉
People swap brands all the time, it’s really not the big deal people say it is.
One thing to take into consideration:
The A99 aims to the pro market. But pro’s couldnt care less for the EVF. It’s merely distracting for them.
…and you know this for a fact? No, it’s just YOUR opinion…
My guess is that these so-called “pro’s” you speak of have never and will never consider a Sony regardless of whether it has an EVF or OVF.
Interesting, since I know almost a dozen videographer pros who are excited to be able to shoot video with the viewfinder instead of needing a rig just to keep the rear screen at a good viewing distance. They bought 20+ A77 for that purpose already, and have already preordered the A99.
Man this feature is GODSEND. I use it all the time with my A57, it’s damn useful!
I think Pros do not spend their time on these forums discussing the pros and cons of EVF, they are out shooting.
I also believe that because of the apparently excellent video functions on the A99 pros will look very closely at the A99.
Pros usually adapt very quickly to something such as the EVF, they care much more about AF, low noise, video, in short the functionality of the camera na dnot about the looks or viewfinder. As long as it does the job and fulfills their needs, who cares.
The review of LL was actually excellent, if you deduct the rant aout EVF. He thinks the A99 is cutting edge and the image quality is excellent. He expects DxO to rate the sensor very highly, that is all the counts for me.
For all of you who expect/ want Sony to make another OVF: it has beenstated by Sony explicitly, this will NOT happen. So frankly, instead of ranting anout EVF, do yourself a favour and jump ship, if you REALLY believe the grass is so much greener on the other side.
Just a final suggestion: go over to the Canikon forums first and have a good read…they are full of complaints.
Stef.
Yesterday I shot a Football game with my A77 in manual mode. It is great to have a preview of how the image will be exposed. I was able to adjust speed on the fly to keep consistent exposure whit changing light. Is it totally accurate hell no, but it is pretty good and definitely good enough once you seem the in the EVF and calibrated screen. Then you know while shooting what to expect
I still use 35mm and MF film camera with viewfinders varying between big and bright to more or less worthless – and I think some people are forgetting that a viewfinder is a composition tool not a means to enjoy the bloody scenery!
Can I compose a shot in the dark using off camera flash with an OVF? It ain’t easy!
Can I manual focus an f/1.4 lens with no focus confirmation with an OVF? The EVF’s focus peaking makes it a lot easier!
Can I see what’s in deep shadow with an EVF? Maybe not – but I’ve still got 2 perfectly good eyes – and how often is that going to affect the photo I take anyway?
About the only thing I can do with an OVF that I can’t do with an EVF is look through it and say “Isn’t this OVF wonderful”
It’s the resulting picture that’s important. The OVF will never show what the output of the sensor is going to give.
Other than composition, what your eyes see through an OVF is meaningless. OVF fanatics fail to see this most basic flaw in their argument.
Then that picture is displayed on a monitor or printed on a printer, yet again it will be NOTHING like what your eyes see through the OVF.
Full disclosure: I have only limited experience with Sony’s EVF cameras, and I write this out of genuine curiosity. When shooting, I spotmeter the highlights, then the shadows, and if the latitude is too great, I determine which to sacrifice. When I tested the A77, I was shocked by the absence of shadow detail in the viewfinder. I could not accurately gauge the importance of the darker portions because I couldn’t make out what was in them. Am I wrong not to trust an EVF’s image rendering anymore than I do my camera’s LCD screen? Is it really an accurate depiction of raw data? From what I’ve seen of A77 and A99 raw files, I think it can’t be. And if it’s not a reliable rendering, why is an OVF and a good grasp on metering inferior and obsolete?
I have been eagerly awaiting an update to my A900, though it has served me well professionally. I’m excited by the new technology but don’t want to sacrifice utility for convenience.
We are all going to buy it and keep A-mount alive and healthy, ’cause this time Sony really did it right. 🙂
In the end all the benefits of the so called EVF will not make anyones pictures better. In the end you want to enjoy shooting and that’s where the OVF will always be the winner. No nonesense clear viewfinder, just take pictures without seeing noise in low light, lag, tons of distracting digits etc… Just the idea of looking at a screen when taking photos take away the fun. It just doesnt feel ‘right’.
Who wants to gain the chance of an epilepsy attack when taking a photo anyway?
> just take pictures without seeing noise in low light,
and see nothing due to the darkness instead 😉
Don’t point out the positives, it isn’t allowed.
You can’ be serious?
EVF DOES help you achieve better results and your images WILL get better. No more wrong wb, under- or overexposure, no more slanting horizons…and much more.
Pleasure? That is a questn of personal preference.
Reminds me of the discussions years ago about AF versus MF cameras…
Stef.
“and see nothing due to the darkness instead”
Why would you want to take a picture in the darkness anyway?
Why would you want to use a fancy smartphone when you can use the old feature mobile phone!!?!?!?!
Why would you want to use digital when you can have film?
Why would you want to take pictures in the night, when you can take pictures in the day?
Why would you use a ATM when you can queue up in the bank?
Why would you use the internet when you can order the papers?
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? OHHHH LORD WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?
Why are people so STUPID when they can be smart!!!??!?!?!
Because in my experience OVF becomes unusable _before_ you see obtrusive noise in EVF.
The issue isnt’t OVF vs EVF, its whether or not the translucent mirror is fast becoming old technology (as it was always a stopgap in any case).
Once accurate on-sensor focuising pixels are here (2-5 years?), I expect the mirror (and OVF) to dissapear altogether, giving us much smaller full frame cameras.
Now that image quality is a given, reducing full frame body size (and therefore reducing full frame cost) will be the defining factor of the next-gen, along with replacing ‘feature cameras’ with ‘smart cameras’ (as ocurred with mobile phones). Its the only place the industry can go from here.
I dont get the thing with ‘smaller bodies’. Where we want to go with this? All FF bodies the size of a NEX? No! That’s not what we need.
Many serious shooters need that big sturdy body with a advanced and detailled control lay out.
D600, D800 size cameras are as small as they have to get. Otherwise people can always opt for a NEX camera.
‘Many serious shooters need …’
I dont think pro photographers will be the target market. I’m convinced that full frame will be mainstream in a few years. People using FF will typically not be funding them with paid gigs.
We will have the current image quality, but not the large body, mirror, nor OVF. The only thing separating a pro and mainstream user will be number of lenses. This is happening *now* with Sony’s fixed lens FF: a full frame camera with one lens. Low price FF is also already happening in a less dramatic way from CaNikon with their most recent models.
Early days, but we can already see the way the industry is thinking: paid photography is a reducing market, so FF either needs to go maintream or become small and elitist. Its decided on the mainstream.
FWIW, I bought an A77 instead of a NEX7 for the reasons you mention (I’m used to a camera, not a small box!), but I have a feeling the A77 will be my last ‘traditional looking’ camera.
Sony should improve the EVF in A99. The E-M5’s EVF is better according to LL.
OVF is a thing of past. Only old photographic dinosaurs are resisting to give it up.
Without any doubt EVF will rule the photography world. It will get only better and better every iteration. Today is fully capable of replacing OVF, regardless what dinosaurs say. They are trying to use it like an OVF and don’t want to see the many advantages EVF has over OVF.
I take pictures now with Sony DSLR OVF and I look forward to the A99 EVF viewfinder!
All these negative views of the EVF are valid but it is far more important for me to see the real output of the camera set. Already looking forward to experimenting with the white balance on the EVF or global exposure!
Quality of images in articles is more than great!
I am missing something here, how can you have an OVF and benefit from on sensor detection?
I get what LL are saying about the SLT becoming redundant but if we are to beleive that on senser AF will be good enough not to need a seperate phase detection sensor, how are they suggesting they utilise that with a flappy mirror for the OVF in the way????
Wait…some day we will see a ProCam from Canon or Nikon with EVF and than the world is good for all.
A discussion like this happend every time when Sony is one step ahead and when Sony was one step behind.
Nikon/Canon is like a religion…not more or less.
Ohhhhhhh!!! Finally someone said it clearly and right. I agree 100% with what you said.
Since when is looking through a viewfinder a religious experience?
Its a tool to frame your shot check DOF and focus nothing more.
Get over yourselves.
I’m not denying some of the advantages of an EVF, but I was hugely disappointed that they hadn’t improved it considerably when stepping from the A77 to the A99.
I was out shooting in the park yesterday, in moderately bright light and had both my A900 and my A77 with me.
Looking through the viewfinder’s of both was absolutely no comparison – the A900 was a joy to use; bright, clear and I can ‘see’ the shot I’m going to end up with. With the A77, I’m seeing glare, deep shadows and hardly any colour – squinting and often struggling to even make out a large subject on the screen, let alone tell if it was in focus.
(my mate with his D700, was amazed at how good the A900 was, but also agreed that the A77 viewfinder wasn’t even close in quality)
I know my glasses make this worse and I think I’m actually getting light shining onto the EVF screen either directly or reflected off my glasses (I guess with an OVF the same light is harmlessly passing backwards through the lens) But either way with the sun directly behind me, or directly in front, the EVF is virtually unusable in about the same way that a rear screen is in similar light.
The EVF has come a long way with the A77, and I think has surpassed cheap OVFs with their tunnel views. And it works well indoors, and comes with quite a number of advantages with horizon levels, fulltime histogram, WYSIWYG view, and is a dream for manual focussing.
But outdoors, for a glasses wearer, it is not even close to matching the A900 viewfinder, can be virtually unusable and is such a huge step backward that I can’t even contemplate being stuck with EVF as my only option.
I’ve no doubt that EVFs are the future, but they’ve got a long way to go until they match the very best OVF’s.
For now I have the luxury of choosing which to use depending on the circumstances, but Sundays trip confirmed for me to keep the A900 and hope that the next model after the A99 makes large improvements with its EVF.
You make a very good point. EVF is useless in sunlight if you happen to wear glasses.
I have the option of wearing either glasses or contact lenses, and would not dream of attempting to wear glasses when using my A77 outdoors: on a bright day the EVF is far dimmer than ambient light, so you can’t see much unless you can block out the ambient by pressing your eye into the viewfinder.
Also, I find with glasees on, my eye is too far back for the EVF, and the effects of distortion from the EVF are easier to cause (NB – all Sony EVFs has a magnifyer in them between the screen and eye, and if you move slightly left/right, you see distortion).
Without glasses, I can just reduce the contrast to get the shadows away from black (assuming you shoot RAW, you can just set style to neutral and set contrast to -3, and this setting doesnt affext the RAW), and the EVF becomes perfect again.
I don’t have to wear glasses nor my contacts with the EVF. I adjust the Diopter as required. 🙂
Sure EVF will come of age but it maybe a few years before they rival & beat a big, clear OVF. if you want a top of the range DSLR with a OVF then get a Nikon 800e, here in the UK its the same price as the A99 £2,399.00 and you get a 36MP sensor without and AA filter!
I guess Sony simply hasn’t manage to be in time with a new ELV, so the terms made it to use the existing one from A77. There was an interview with one of Sony imaging persons who said the main problem with the development of FF SLT camera was a viewfinder that could match the excellent viewfinder of A900 and A850. And what did we see in A99? The same viewfinder as in A77 while the talk was on the other one.
The same thing could be with the phase detection sensor – it seems to be shared with A77.
Considering the redundancy of SLT mirror the point is the size of phase detection sensors. They are larger on the separate block than on the image sensor.
What I can see through an EVF vs. OVF is comparable to taking a photo from just viewing it, to being able to see the subtle changes in light,color,and contrast and what effect changing exposure has on the photo. With the EVF you can create (almost) an HDR photo vs. shooting x number of shots and then creating what you think you saw later with LR or PS. I will not go into the info presented in the EVF as that has already been covered. To me this compares to car enthusiasts – you can continue to drive you’re 1968 Porsche and rave about its many attributes, or you can drive a 2012 Porsche. The choice is yours.
A well designed EVF blows OVF out of the water. My greater concern is the effect of the translucent mirror on ISO performance. Is it me or is it glaringly obvious that 5DMK3 high ISO performance is visibly superior. I think that’s where the real compromise is. I’m sure the A99 will be a fantastic camera but noise performance is not a compromise I’m willing to make on the SLR front. I think that I will continue to wait for a full frame NEX that really opens up infinite lens combos and manual focusing heaven.
As has been repeated over and over, on the A77 for example, it’s between a third and a half light loss, nothing more.
The independently verified figures for the SLT-77 mirror foil under various angles of incidence are ca. 70% transmission vs. 30% reflectance over the visible spectrum of 400 to 700 nm. This is about 1/2 EV.
http://www.sonyuserforum.de/galerie/data/media/6/SLT_Spiegel_2.jpg
I’ve seen it tested to be exactly between too.
Either way, I’m going by what my eyes have seen from this field report and casual perusals of ISO tests at other sites. It could also be that Canon also has better image processing algorithms. ISO & AF performance led me to upgrade my 5MK2. The swivel screen and EVF have made me pine for the A99 but I think it takes a step backwards in ISO performance, which is a deal breaker. The lens flexibility of a full frame NEX system will make it a better option than the A99. Unless I’m proved wrong on my high ISO comparisons, my setup will continue to be a 5DMK3 and hopefully in the near future a full frame NEX camera with built-in EVF.
We are well into the age of hybrid systems. The way I see it, video is the growth area of capture market: still imaging will shrink in usage. Having an EVF is essential.
I give Sony full marks on their use of an EVF instead of the OVF.
Now all Sony has to do on their next iteration make it swivel.
for Matthias:
But this is not to discuss the A99.
1) A99 has a FF sensor = you pick up the more light unlike A77
2) A99 is a better material for improving light transmission = more efficient
> 1) A99 has a FF sensor = you pick up the more light unlike A77
The sensor will pick up more photons per time, but also for a larger area. The number of photons per area per time won’t change, as it is independent of the size of the sensor given a more or less even illumination.
> 2) A99 is a better material for improving light transmission = more efficient
I seriously doubt this. What makes you think they are using an improved material in the SLT-A99? There have been no Sony statements claiming this, but even if there were, this doesn’t mean much.
Further, it is not only a matter of the properties of the foil, but also the AF module. If we assume the light absorption to be neclectible, a higher transmission means less reflectance, so, for the same effective AF sensitivity, they would need a new AF module with improved sensitivity. However, it doesn’t look as if they have changed the AF module…
+1
More and more clients require you to shoot not only stills but also video. I had to shoot a corporate outing the other day and they explicitly wanted both. The whole thing happened on a little boat (sturgeon fishing trip) with not much space to take both my video equipment and my still camera.
The A77 did a good enough job but I would be very happy if I would not have to record the sound separately. The A99 looks bery promising.
Stef.
There’s a nice saying in German: Wer nicht mit der Zeit geht, geht mit der Zeit. It’s a re-birth of the latin saying “Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis” and means the same thing: Time changes, and we have to adapt to keep in touch with time.
I love the OVF of my A900 as I do for the Dynax 9. I ordered an A99 recently and I assume that I will also love the EVF of it, since I expect some additions I could not get with the OVF. There are arguments pro and contra OVF and EVF, but they are not a go/nogo feature for me. The go/nogo features for me are: excellent pictures, compatibility for my A-lenses, no obstacles for getting the shot. Viewfinder? Not an issue as long as I see what I get, and I assume that the WYSIWYG effect in EVF is higher that with OVF.
We have to face reality: Sony goes EVF and there’s nothing we can do about it. And I highly support Sony in their decisions.
At the end, SLR technology was a compromise: See the perspective of the later image, at the price of a mirror and a tiny viewfinder (compared to two-lens designs or rangefinder designs). The matte screen newer showed me the look of the real image, since OOF areas are not rendered correctly. DSLR is nothing more that SLR with a sensor instead of a film. This is only an intermediate step, since it ignores the advantages of full-electronic designs.
In a few years, DSLR cameras will have on-sensor phase-detect AF and full electronic shutters. No mechanical mirror boxes, no mechanical shutters. No optical viewfinder, no pentaprism or pentamirror.
And I am waiting for a firmware upgrade that supports a stabilized viewfinder, since Steady-Shot should be allowed to be active before making the shot as well (as an option that can be turned on and off, of course).
LuLa ignores that there are some advantages to the SLT over SLR.
I am thinking that for anything video, action stills, and anything handheld, the fulltime liveview, and fulltime PDAF will be a a major advantage.
Although these things are just not in LuLa’s point of interest, I find it a bit narrowminded to be completely oblivious of it.
I disagree with OVFs being better than EVFs, and I especially disagree with the assessment from luminous landscape.
They omitted the one major advantage of an EVF: You can get your exposure right before you shoot. On my A900 I find myself reshooting every second photo, because I preferred a slightly different exposure from what I got.
In my view, with the A99 my shooting will become much more effective due to better exposures and less images that I have to discard later on the computer.
Barri I really don’t mean any offense by this, but I know how it will sound in text. But getting an accurate exposure is something that can be learnt and mastered long before EVFs came along. Infact many might argue its a skill that is becoming lost in today’s photographers. You could argue it was one of the ‘skills’ behind photography.
Now one could argue whether its your responsibility to know how to expose something, or even if it should be your problem to take care of that, but really that just brings to light questions of Amateur vs Pro. At the end of the day, if EVFs help you spend more brain power on composition and thats where your passion of Photography lie, then great, however many probably enjoy the ‘process’ and ‘knowledge’ of setting their own exposure, or even understanding and predicting it.
Really all I’m saying is your inability to obtain a desired exposure, is really an educational problem, and using a tool to fix that for you can be a good thing or a bad thing.
For me the exposure aspect of your comment is probably the one reason I dislike my EVF on the NEX7… If Sony hadn’t tied the histogram to the EVF image then using ‘settings effect off’ would probably solve that problem for me. However in its current state it is practically impossible to gauge a exposure manually using Sony’s EVF and their current firmware (may be different on the DSLRs).
For all the folks talking about how EVF helps them get a perfect exposure, the truth is that this is only true if you are not using a flash.
I shoot a lot of indoors pictures where flash is essential and there is no way that the EVF can simulate what the resultant exposure will be with flash especially when I’m bouncing the flash off a ceiling or something.
My own experience has been that the camera’s own metering can be trusted when shooting in natural light. It is with flash that things become tricky and no EVF on earth can help you with that!
OVF to EVF, I wish it had happened long ago.
Really! who cares if you can see the “real” colors through the OVF, when they are actually not that real either once they go through the matt screen.
I believe 99% of photographers who use a DSLR, process their files on a way that will always look different from what the reality was at the moment they took the shot.
just a bit of curves here and more saturation and contrast there (or viceversa) and what are you going to do with the memories of what you saw through the OVF? Nothing!
I understand why “Michael postcard photographer” want to see exactly how the scene look like through the OVF…. because he has zero artistic imput on his way of taking photos!!! He should use a color copier instead of a camera and he would have the same results!
No my experience show that it cannot. Also EVF is perfect to adjust exposure when you want to prioritize highlight or shadow
Turn on 2 second review and you will see how your bounces flash looks like and if you got the desired exposure, you can tell if anyone blinked without removing the camera from your for chimping. Tapping the shutter button will have the preview go away instantly while you are working or you pause to review, all in the EVF. Manual flash and bounce become easy with EVF
It’s a well written and well thought out review, and should be read completely before being trashed.
I don’t agree with some of the more personal opinions, but I also haven’t used the a99 like he has or apparently some posters here have and It’s amazing how many here know so much about how the a99 performs, and can say so with so much certainty; it reminds me of the same type of postings just before and just after the a77 shipped.
The LL review of the a900 back when it came to market was largely responsible for my continuing to shoot A-Mount and to purchase a pair of Sony Alpha a850’s, so I personally read the review with much interest and think his opinon is as good if not better as anyother
I don’t think many of us our as will rounded in photography and can say they own or are using cameras like the Nikon d800 during the same shoot while testing the new Sony a99.
Having said that, we are all different and have different needs, but the review is overall a positive review.
I have an a55 and I like it, but I miss the OVF – I guess it’s individual. As to EVF being the future, that remains to be seen. You could say that the electric car is the future – see what I mean?
EVF is the future. In the present, nothing beats OVF on a FF DSLR. Bu, obviously, EVF is the only real WYSIWYG option, and, in principle,solves so many issues, including optimal manual focusing control. The A99 combination of orientable LCD and permanent liveview in EVF, including peaking, would be a dream for me, if only it was possible to see the scene when the sun plays at weird angles. I wear glasses, and have no intention of taking of my glasses to shoot. Current EVFs just do not work.
Give me FF, OVF AND the best possible LiveView implementation with best possible orientable LCD. That graal is nowhere to be seen yet.
I still shoot mostly film but after using an A77 at a wedding for a few hours I quickly see the advantages to an EVF on digital technology. The OVF makes perfect sense on analog based system and provides the highest level of advantages in this format.
The bottom line is that digital requires more tweaks in camera to get it right in camera. An EVF allows you to make these necessary tweaks without even removing your eye from the VF. You will take better photos SOOC with a high quality EVF on digital over an OVF for these reasons. In harsh light it doesn’t matter which you use because you will likely need to chimp a couple of shots to gain optimal settings.
Bitching about the differences in how you can see shadow detail in comparison to EVF’s and OVF’s is total rubbish. A good photographer does not rely on their eyes in situations like this. You shoot it based on the available light you can see without looking through a VF and the capabilities of the camera + lens in hand. Just like in the film days you do the best you can with what you have available. But in the same situation with an EVF you get full time Live View right in the VF to make realtime adjustments to exposure and WB. This along with all the other goodies that we can never have with an OVF make it a better option for the efficient photography.
At the end of the day the user of a EVF to the level of the A99 will take better photos faster if they utilize the system. They can spend more time shooting and composing without loosing contact with the subject by constantly checking the back LCD.
Sony has been selling SLT and EVF for several years now and has won several “best camera” awards right?
So if the EVF is so great why aren’t the cameras selling better?
It really surprises me that sales are’t better for the great a57 and the pre-orders are as slow as being reported for the new a99.
Sorry but this is not true!
With the Nex system the overall camera sale of Sony cameras is now on second place before Nikon.
Stef.
Great points, but not a field test by any means. I still want a99 over my a850. I would like to see a dedicated to photography a9 though. My points for a99: silent operation with no vibration, tilt screen (you can talk to your subjects with the camera off your face), EVF is bright in low light or when ND filters are used (try that with the OVF) peaking mode, better autofocus (would like to see a better coverage).
I think we should keep in the overall conclusion of the LL review in mind, “In the end, with the Sony A99 we have a camera that delivers superb image quality in a full frame 24 Megapixel format. High ISO noise performance is excellent and operationally there is little that is missing. One can quibble with the design of some interface controls, but then this is true of every camera. The use of an EVF / pellicle mirror notwithstanding, for many photographers this camera will be a dream, and there’s hardly a contemporary feature that I can think of that’s lacking, except maybe for built-in WiFi.”
I do not concern myself with the EVF and OVF arguments. After using both for many years I do what I prefer. I like EVF outdoors and OVF in the studio. What I am not going to do this time with the a99 is preorder the camera and pay the full price. I preordered the a57 and bought it only to see that the price was reduced $100. So I will wait a little while or maybe even so long as to buy a used a99. I appreciate Sony who is pushing all the camera manufactors to release some pretty great stuff. I am into photgraphy for the amazing beauty of the world and its many subjects both in nature and people.
Reichman is completely out to lunch!
There’s nothing authoritie on his site about anything. What annoys me is that Sony give cameras to the press instead of getting real photographers to take great images with these cameras
As always Michael nailed it.
Interesting and good conclusion at LL:
“This isn’t so far fetched. The new M Leica will have three seperate finders; its traditional window optical finder, Live View on the rear LCD, or an accessory EVF. If Sony had been brave enough to take this approach not only could they have justified the A99’s higher price, but also trumped the competition with something truly aggressive and unique in DLSRs.”
I hope Sony reads this.
No, a A99 with OVF isn’t a A99 killer, because A850/A900 users don’t change to the A99. I know nobody who does this. A850/A900 users stay in the system and hope for a real successor of the A900 or leave to Nikon D800.
So what you thing will happen in 2-4 years?
If Sony will be successful with a EVF which is really as good as a OVF, with no problems at bright light and at strong contrasts – then good.
If Sony will offer a additional A99 with OVF – then good.
If Sony won’t be successful with a real good EVF and there won’t be a A99 with OVF – then we will see thousands of Zeiss and G lenses coming into the market of A850/A900 users leaving mainly to Nikon.
So it is up to Sony.
In my view the current strategy of Sony is quite risky.
Going back to OVF because many pros are used to OVF would be like going back to fixed screens because many pros are used to fixed screens and tilt-swivel screens might break someday. A silly movement against technologic progress. IMHO.
You guys are jealous on d800’s 36mpx and his BEAUTIFUL OVF !
I quited Sony because of that… I am now a happy photographer (like i was with A900…)
I enjoyed the article. I have enjoyed the evf and many times preferred it over my 850’s ovf. The most ridiculous comment may be that one of the reasons one may want to use a ff camera is becaus of the excellent viewing through the ovf. Are you kidding? At least that was not the reason I bought a ff camera. My biggest concern is still with iso performance. I guess we will have to see how it fares vs the 600. Since I not bunged up over the evf the 99 will be a great camera for me. Oh another thing is that I am sure the camera is significantly lighter because of the use of the evf.
No: (50%, 1,408 Votes)
Yes: (50%, 1,405 Votes)
Looks like we’re going to need the supreme court to decide this one.
The easy answer is:
Make both cameras – and all would be happy then.
It’s that easy.
All this talk of the EVF being “the future”. Yet, for still photography, it hasn’t added any real improvements yet. I get why Sony went with the translucent mirrors, they simply didn’t have much of a choice if they wanted to catch up with Canon and Nikon when it comes to AF speed and precision at high fps (C and N spent a lot of time and money developing their cameras for sports photographers while Minolta never managed to catch up). The EVF negates the problem of a darker viewfinder caused by the translucent mirror technology (a common comment for the EOS 1N RT if memory serves me right).
Eventually, the EVF will be equal to an OVF, maybe even better in some respects as it should be easily customized for the user.
As for “what you see in the viewfinder is the same as the camera sees”… Really. When I’m shooting, I want the view through the viewfinder to be exactly the same as what my eyes would see if the camera was not there. And I expect the camera to capture the image my eyes see. The meter will be good enough that I won’t have to worry too much about exposure compensation in most cases and the automatic white balance will be good enough that the colours are correct.
My camera (aps-c with OVF) is already there, lacking only a larger viewfinder (which could be had with either technology).
So I’m not for or against EVFs or OVFs, I can only conclude that the EVF has a long way to go for stills photography. It may be the technology for the future. But it’s not the technology for today. Rest assured, when EVF’s have gotten to the point of being both better and cheaper than an OVF, both Canon and Nikon will have them in all their cameras.
For now, my vote goes in favour of the OVF.
evf is not darker than ovf. ovf with translucent mirror IS darker than ovf with flapping mirror. iI wish that the evf haters took an SLT 77 in their hands for an afternoon.
hey, that’s what I said, wasn’t it? The translucent mirror OVF canon used back in the day resulted in a darker viewfinder, but with EVF this is compensated for.
would be interesting to see a cost comparison of various OVF and EVF configurations.
“When I’m shooting, I want the view through the viewfinder to be exactly the same as what my eyes would see if the camera was not there.”
WRONG! – If you want to know what your eyes are seeing, then just don’t look through the viewfinder!
Most people miss the point. What u really want is to see what the sensor is seeing – DOF, focus peaking, white balance & colour temperature, blown out highlights, histogram etc.
“simply didn’t have much of a choice if they wanted to catch up with Canon and Nikon when it comes to AF speed and precision at high fps”
The SLT is the only way to offer AF that even Canon and Nikon cannot come close to matching in still photography and especially video.
“My camera (aps-c with OVF) is already there, lacking only a larger viewfinder.”
– you are hopelessly outdated with the OVF paradigm. Try looking into the A99, I have one 🙂
– If thats not possible, try looking at the A77’s please. Its true what they say, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”
hah far out how close is that poll
I’ve been reading these comments, and its surprising how out spoken the EVF crowd is, and how quiet the OVF crowd is. Yet the split is equal.
Can’t help but feel it says alot.
Personally I’m a OVF advocate, I struggle with the NEX7 EVF in various ways. But I don’t see us having an OVF again in the future. Its a shame (for me).
The main problem is that EVF sucks in bright daylight. They are totally right that shadow detail gets crushed to black and that the whole viewfinder simply isn’t bright or clear enough.
Also, the a99 seems like it didn’t actually need the EVF/SLT. It’s only 6fps, which is the same as the 5d3 with traditional flipping mirror. It has less AF points covering a smaller area too. It seems like any advantage of SLT has turned out to be BS.
What EVF are you talking about? The ones from 12-18 months ago pale in comparison to newer ones. Additionally, the EVFs that we are discussing today are the eyepiece-EVFs, not the back-viewscreen images…
In direct daylight the NEX7 EVF is impossible to gauge exposure from… the Histogram would be useful, but its inaccurate and driven by the EVF image not the actual scene.
the frame rate of the A99 is curious. Many of us expected a high-fps monster. After all, Canon are at 12fps with traditional mirror (and the 1V was at 10fps with film ages ago). And the A77 can produce a competitive framerate albeit with some limitations (which would probably be rather more disturbing in a 9-series camera).
Almost feels like an artificial limitation, a way of making certain that the AF can keep up and get every image sharp (a 12-frame 6fps burst with all images perfectly focused does sound a lot better than a 24-frame 12fps burst with 50%, or less, sharp images) and to avoid the problems the magazines complained about when reviewing the A77. But doesn’t the A-mount limit the frame-rate as well with its mechanical aperture coupling?
Basically, the LL article told me that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Hi
I recently bought an Sony A99 to compliment my A900. In bright Sunlight all shaded areas were black preventing me for selecting a mid grey area to balance my contrast. It’s guesswork all the way. You’d never be able to do wedding work. It would be murder. I’m disappointed as the photos are brilliant. Better than the A900.
I sent the camera back for a refund in the hope Sony will come to their senses and give us a truly pro camera with an OVF.
regards
Allan