There will be always discussions between people about the advantages or disadvantages of Electronic Viewfinder against Optical Viewfinders. In a recent short article Luminous Landscape admin describes “Why I Hate Electronic Viewfinders“. He says: “The reason why is that they are at best tiny TV sets, and as such have very low contrast ratios compared to the ability of the naked eye or a good optical or large DSLR viewfinder. In bright situations, where there is also deep shade, it can make visibility into the shadows when shooting highly compromised.”
It’s ture that current Sony EVF can’t give you the clarity of an Optical Viewfinder but I think that in time EVF will get very close to OVF. Plus you don’t have to forget that EVF gives you some inherent features that are simply non available on OVF. So let’s wait and see what the new generation EVF from Sony will be. 3+ Million dots for the NEX-7n sounds like a good improvement!
195 Responses
Oh good grief. The only people who think the EVF is not INFINITELY better than the OVF, are the people that don’t understand what your viewfinder is FOR.
Who cares if EVFs “have very low contrast ratios compared to the ability of the naked eye or a good optical or large DSLR viewfinder.” If you want to see the world the way your eye can see the world, LOWER YOUR CAMERA ONE INCH. Voila, you can see the world in all it’s splendor.
Too bad THAT view is not the image you’re going to capture. And because it’s not the image you’re going to capture, you’re getting LIMITED information on the job you’re trying to accomplish.
Optical Viewfinders have never….and WILL NEVER…show you as much information, information CRITICAL TO THE TASK, as an electronic viewfinder. It’s optical viewfinders that are behind, lol….it’s been that way for a decade.
The “let’s wait and see what the next gen brings us” is just another way of saying you don’t understand the purpose of the viewfinder:
“To show us how the camera is going to ALTER reality to make the photograph.”
The job of the viewfinder is NOT to show us reality. And LL is just flaunting their ignorance.
Amen brother!
I agree. People seem to too easily forget that while a good electronic viewfinder can show you the scene as your camera is able to capture it, an optical viewfinder cannot. The improvements in EVFs render most other objections (contrast ratio, refresh rate, resolution) moot, or will for most reasonable rational reviewers soon.
Of course if you still shooting film as some are then you can capture more than the evf can show. I am betting that the guy from luminous landscape still prefers and uses film.
sad, that the contrast rendering or the evf is much worse than a good sensor (nex7) can do. so you can not trust on what you see in your evf in terms of contrast. for me the main adventage of the evf is the information, you get without putting your camera from your eye. This includes the histogramm to properly expose your frame, as well as the magnification to focus properly.
The issue is the same problem we’ve had for some time now: digital sensors capture more dynamic range than can be placed on paper (prints) or on displays (EVF, LCD, Web, etc.). This means that you need to compress the capture into the limited DR of the output device or you will have big issues at the ends of the exposure (shadows/highlights). No current EVF does more than a fair job of this in real time at the moment. Some do poorly at this. When that happens, you get the problems Michael outlines: not being able to see what’s happening in the composition in your deep shadows or bright highlights.
When I hear people saying that EVFs are fine the way they are, what I hear is that the person doesn’t care about time lag or critical composition. Over time these things have gotten better with EVFs, but we still have a fair ways to go for them to get “good.”
Critical composition has nothing to do with the type of VF, people did just fine before the pentaprism came along.
I appear to be able to keep up with fast jets and motor sport with my EVF. I have to wonder about some peoples abilities…
I own EVF and FF OVF cameras. I shoot the EVF more, but I like it much less. I realize we are on SAR, so there is a bias. Photographers, more than most groups, will a pay premium for the last little bit of quality. And EVF is not quality to many people. Plus, it damages battery life. I can get exposure very accurately in most any seen without have the EVF do it for me. It’s the same with SLT mirrors, that one half to one third stop isn’t a very big deal, unless you’re willing to pay a premium for the highest quality. And that’s the way the photo world works.
“When I hear people saying that EVFs are fine the way they are, what I hear is that the person doesn’t care about time lag or critical composition.”
Neither of which are an issue at all on Sony EVFs.
Critical composition is actually easier on the EVF than OVF in low light. With OVF it is often too dark to see anything. With EVF, it might be a noisy view, but you can see what is there.
Lag is also an overblown issue spread by the OVF luddites. There are very little practical implications caused by any small amount of lag that is present.
i really would like to see an example of those critical composition elements that you cant see in the EVF as i have a hard time imagining it..
Well said.
The OVF is dead, long live the EFV!
I did exactly the same when i red your comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4vbMv9gbmM
Amen, #2!! I second the motion. EVF is where it’s happening and will continue to happen. The times they are a changin’. Luminous Landscape is very subjective and biased on their thinking about EVF vs OVF.
Don’t forget about having visual Object Tracking, WB and effects instantly, Electronic Level, man! I really miss an EVF when I use somebody elses camera.
I have both an A900 and a NEX-7, so in terms of viewfinders, I have the best of both Worlds – and I prefer the OVF, though not by much.
Both viewfinders have Unique advantages, and the EVF has more than the OVF, but most of those advantages are rarely used, and the one big advantage of the OVF, being able to see straigth through the lens, not “through a sensor and a miniature TV screen, is so tremendous it outweighs the EVF’s “WYSIWYG”, multiple layers of data etc.
For instance, the built-in Electronic level is not terribly precise. I’ve found that I need to tilt the camera clockwise until it goes off level, then ease it back to level for it to be reasonably correct. If I turn counter-clockwise and then back, the camera is several degrees off level. I’d much rather use the gridlines on my focusing screen. Remember, if there are no horizontal or vertical lines to align with, there’s no need to hold the camera perfectly straight and level.
Amen 3!
If you think about it DSLRs ware made after film SLR so we can see the result of our photo right after we make the shot.
But the next logical step is Live View which shows you the picture even before you made the shot!
And the following step after next step is: the camera decides when to take a picture instead of you.
Why not? There is a function, called FOCUS TRAPPING iirc. Camera waits when subject comes in focus and fires shutter. I wish that function would be available on NEX.
It is really a question, why would human beings should take pictures instead of machines or AIs?
You set the focus to a certain point by yourself, so it’s your decision.. It just helps you to photograph something fast, for example.
We already got that, smile shutter.
Amen 4!
Absolutely agree with you, since I had my Konica Minolta A2 (which means lots of years ago!)
+1
The viewfinder is for composing your shot, not for watching ‘Life Of Pi’. 🙂
Also, as someone who enjoys shooting at night and in low light, I really appreciate what an EVF has to offer.
Amen to you! 🙂
If you were shooting a 500mm lens you would feel different. Lowering the camera and looking isn’t the same view!
I regularly shoot with my Sigma 100-300 f/4 APO (equals 150-450 on a FF) and I still say amen to Daves post. 🙂
EVF suck’s on low light, still I like them but they are far from perfect yet
No, it’s OVFs that are poor in low light. Would you rather have a noisy view (EVF) or no view at all (OVF)?
Exactly. Your choice in very low light is a noisy but easily discernible subject through the EVF or no image at all through the OVF. I have found that I can go back and forth without an issue, but if I am using my 850 I will miss shots if I am not constantly paying attention to the meter. The EVF lets me know immediately if my lighting has changed even in subtle ways that I may want to alter my aperture or shutter speed.
your eyes takes 10 min to switch over from rods to cones and 20-30 min to fully adapt to the darkness. EVFs destroy that when used. For a one off shot EVFs are better but in no way do I find my EVF to be constantly useable in the darkness.
EVF
+in VF Histogram
+IR and UV converted cameras
+Using 6+ stop ND filters (live view works just fine as well as all shots are done on a tripod at that point.)
+Manual focus without changing focusing screen
+can use smaller/cheaper sensors (1.5/2.0/2.5x ) with out effecting VF size (largest advantage I see with EVFs)
+better for beginners
OVF
+in low light
+Less battery use
+detail in shadows
+No Lag/ghosting
+Sharper
+find it easier to keep my other eye open and scan both the VF and my surroundings
EVFs have many positives. That said I do not see an advantage of using an EVF over an OVF in my day to day work, OVF work far better, BUT!!! Until I leave the business I will always have an EVF camera and will keep it updated at least for IR work. Ideally I would like to see an updated nikon F3 (DX) with interchangeable EVFs, a removable/interchangeable IR screen (like the sigma) and a global shutter as a backup/IR camera.
You have to differentiate between “darkness” and “regular low light”.
In most low light situations a good sensor plus good EVF and bright lens give you a better view, because you instantly see what your eyes plus brains would require up to 20 minutes to show. In most low light situations the light sources themselves or even the LCD for reviewing and changing settings, changing lighting conditions, this means you don’t have to wait to adapt.
For night shooting with very distant point light sources and levels near or below 0 EV, moon landscapes etc., an OVF has a benefit if your night vision isn’t ruined by other factors.
But again that’s a small portion of low light shooting in general.
And that’s from personal experience using both for quite some time.
It’s not just low light though. Its any time you have a high contrast situation. If the meter decides to meter for the bright background you can’t see you subject in the shadows. Its not going to be fixed by how many millions of dots are in the evf. It could probably be fixed by applying a DRO type logic to the image being displayed in the EVF.
So far having both the A900 and the A99 it feels like a Tit for Tat scenario. For every thing I’ve gained through the EVF I’ve lost something in the OVF. So I can’t say one is superior at the moment but hopefully technology will catch up since it doesn’t look like I’ll be seeing any more OVFs that will work with my lens collection.
Umm, DRO effects can be displayed in the EVF already. If you want it in the final picture, the EVF can display it, it’s that simple. A matter of curves really.
Go to DXO and compare the a77 to the D7100. D7100 kills in low light, almost double that of the a77. For me thats enough said. I also couldn’t get used to the crappy/grainy image in the EVF. good for some, but not for me.
Chris,
I am an optometrist and your explanation of rods and cones are overly simplified. Your dark adaption is true but only when you are talking none to minimal light. In that case you will not see anything in the ovf because there is not enough reflective light to produce an image. Also if you are seeing any color the cones are being used in conjunction with rods since rods have no color function.. Rods and cones usually operate together. They just have different functions. I personally find the EVF is better in low light and OVF better in really bright light.
Zohee35
“Umm, DRO effects can be displayed in the EVF already. If you want it in the final picture, the EVF can display it, it’s that simple. A matter of curves really.”
thats not true a sensor can capture more DR than LCD EVF or prints can display. you could adjust the gama but that would not solve all the problems.
@Polk
“I am an optometrist and your explanation of rods and cones are overly simplified.” Agree 100% I am a photographer not an optometrist :).
“Your dark adaption is true but only when you are talking none to minimal light. In that case you will not see anything in the ovf because there is not enough reflective light to produce an image.”
Well if I can see anything outside the viewfinder I can see something in my viewfinder (I am sure this is not true when using cheaper lens/camera). and the only time I was unable to see anything was in a cave… But say a dark moonless night out side of the city, the sharp change from an EVF to the world would not be a problem for your eyes?
I have had an EVF sense the nikon 8400. They are much better now, but still have never come across a lighting situation that I would prefer to work with an EVF over an OVF because of darkness (and I have worked in very dark studios). On a “dark” city night (dark city I dont think that ever happens :P) the EVF and OVF are bight easy to see thought viewfinders. so I should change my table to OVF better in very low and less contrast light… I do see the advantage of an EVF for people learning, slower lens and anyone that does not photograph as much as I do in a year. (or my IR/vacation cameras)
Chris,
We are getting into the realm of a not going anywhere discussion. Looking through a camera (OVF) is not the same as with directly with your eye. Even with fast glass. You have to take into consideration the property of glass which is not 100% transmission of light (light is lost to reflection as light enters an exits each glass element) and reflective properties of mirrors. The same light you would see with your eyes is not the same as viewed even through the best glass. But the bigger question that I think you make is who would be shooting in such poorly lit conditions anyways. I would love a link to your work. I enjoy viewing as many peoples work as I can. It helps me expand my limited creative capabilities.
Poke
Poke
nvm. I was just asking the question as to when/if low light vision would be compromised. Moonless nights (think star trails) and Dark studios are the darkest normal places I work. I do also shot weddings in the summer so there are other low light venues I work in but I have not noticed a lighting scenario that would persuade me to use a EVF over an OVF. I was trying to get a time that your EVF worked better.
And I did make an error as I meant to say “change my table to very low light and *high contrast.”
Yes Chris but what if I don’t want DRO applied to my final image? I’m shooting with studio flashes to balance out the background in the final image and actually taking that bright background and knocking it down quite a bit. My point was/is that with the EVF we are at the mercy of the metering system and the dynamic range that the sensor can capture and then what the EVF can display. It pales in comparison to what the eye can see through a good OVF. That being said I love what I can do when I turn the shot preview on and have to follow a moving subject through light and shadows. It makes it much easier to adjust exposure to capture the image I want.
BTW – I am usually shooting in manual mode if that answers any questions for every one.
Completely agreed on all the above. I really don’t understand the whole argument against evfs myself as I’ve found them to be irreplaceable in how I take photos. I couldn’t imagine having to take your shot blindly in a way, by not seeing immediate changes to your scene when you change your exposure. In my mind, the OVF as well as the traditional SLR (digital and film) is old technology. They had their place and importance in photographic history but it seems to me that so many of the options and functions of the best dslrs on the market now are really just functions to overcome the limitations of this past technology. Live view, mirror lock up, and of course the OVF. I say, instead of trying to figure out ow to make an old mechanism modern, start fresh and implement a new idea completely. I believe Sony is onto something with their SLT line. They need to work out how to overcome the added noise in higher ISO settings versus ts competition but you are able to get full time phase detection, actual live view all the time with the evf, and blazing fps rates that can’t be matched by all but the extremely expensive, top of the line Nikon or Canon.
And sure, the graininess in an evf is distracting to me in low light I’ll admit, but that’ll improve over time. But come on, complaining that your eye is always better in dynamic range than a tv screen?! Ya that’s true, but it doesn’t mean a dslr will be able to capture what your eye can see either. It aids in composition but who’s to say you can’t just pull your eye away from the viewfinder to see what you’re shooting.
+1 And that’s why I keep both eyes open when shooting.
Good for you. Just dont want to convince everyone else 🙂
Exactly! Very well put.
And some of the best photographs were taken with cameras without viewfinders or rudimentary framing devices.
A viewfinder is a compositional aid – not a window.
Amen! nothing more to say about this..
Right on target!
that’s it, nothing to add to that
While I agree in principle with Dave Melges, I have to point out one issue: the image in question taken in the LL article is an image where the NEX-7’s dynamic range is sufficient to show more shadow detail in the statue without washing out the man in costume.
Therefore, even though I agree that the purpose of EVF is to show the image the camera will capture, in this case the point is valid that the EVF fails to show the image that the camera is capturing.
Analogy: current generation EVFs show what a good JPEG will look like off the sensor. A next-gen EVF should show the detail that can be extracted from the RAW off the sensor. When Moore’s law allows for a processor that can do real-time, lag-free DRO-like dynamic range compression to the EVF (and being able to selectively dial in how much compression or turn it off entirely, of course), I suspect Mr. Reichmann will be satisfied.
So again, I stress here that the fundamental complaint here isn’t so much that EVF sucks but rather that the current generation of EVFs are not doing justice to the capabilities of the current generation of sensors that power them.
You clearly didn’t read the article, because he makes a valid point about how your ability to compose properly can be limited by an EVF in high contrast situations.
I don’t get the indignant and angry attitude myself. People are allowed to prefer one over the other. They got along just fine for decades without seeing exposure in the VF so it doesn’t have to be some infinite advantage.
It’s human nature to defend your choice in equipment especially if large $$ were spent. I also defended my a77 purchase until I tried other camers. Not saying the a77 wasn’t a good camera it just wasn’t what I expected over time. I’m sure there is still much better equipment then I currently own, but I no longer have to convince myself that it meets my expectations because it does.
You mean you keep coming to a Sony forum to convince yourself that you left Sony? 😀 Cute.
I wear glasses and find shooting in bright sunlight to be quite hard with my evf a99. It is especially bad when the sun is just in my front right quarter (even if it is high in the sky). Light leakage from the sun into the evf renders it hard to see anything at all in the evf.
However, I tend to wear a broad rimmed hat on sunny days and this shades the sun quite nicely so I don’t usually find the bright sun to be too big a problem. Otherwise, I can just push my glasses up and press my eye into the evf and see it fairly clearly again.
I’m not bothered that the evf cannot render detail in deep shadows user high contrast situations. It still works nicely as a framing tool and as others have stated, I can just raise my eye an inch and see the glorious whole world. I want my VF to show what the camera will see, not what my eye sees!
For me the only big drawback with current evf implementations is the slideshow effect at high frame rates. I still find it hard to keep a track if moving objects at 6fps to 8fps. It was never a problem on my old a700. It was easier on the a77 at 12fps as that was nearly like watching a movie clip at those speeds but then the buffer would fill….
I have found the same problem. I bought the external EVF for my 5r to test it out and see what I think of EVF vs OVF. Daylight is horrible, but it must be because of my glasses as you mention. A major point of the evf was to see when it’s too bright to see the rear screen. Turns out that without taking my glasses off, I can’t see the EVF either. OVF wins on this. Personally, I’d rather have an OVF or just use the rear screen when I want additional info. Besides, histograms and such can be placed below an image as we are used to having exposure info below the OVF.
Forgot to tell: People need to start and realise that the EVF is a totally new tool for photography.
Forgot to tell: People need to start and realise that the EVF is a totally new tool for photography.
Can you adjust the contrast of the EVF view alone?
That way you could have a “EVF high contrast scene view” to
use when seeing both highlights and shadows was important.
It’s worse than that. What color space does the EVF have, and is it even calibrated? People are making decisions on limited information when they make them from an EVF or LCD. With trial and error, you can get reasonably good at that. But thinking that the EVF is showing you exactly what you’re capturing the way you’ll capture it is fallacious thinking.
I have no doubt that we’ll get faster, better, large color space, calibrated EVFs at some point. But as they stand right now they’re a compromise.
Any viewfinder is a compromise unless it is showing you exactly what you are going to get in your photo.
Less than 100% view OVFs are a compromise.
Small, dark pentaprism OVFs are a compromise.
Large, bright, 100% view OVFs are a compromise because exposure or WB adjustments aren’t visible.
You can argue that ANY viewfinder is a compromise.
Sorry, I meant pentamirror.
Well then, it should be even worse with an OVF where you don’t even have the approximation of the EVF, which results in even more trial and error.
umm then maybe you should study exposure do you dont’ have trial and error.
Randy, rather than going personal you should’ve tried to read and understand what I was replying to – comparing which, EVF or OVF, requires more trial and error. Obviously, one should study anyway.
@Thom Hogan
Photographers generally don’t want colours exactly as they see them (and even within the human race there is massive variance as to how each human sees “colour”), they want colours as close as possible to how they envisage their final “product”.
btw is the human eye’s colour space individually calibrated?
The trouble is that a ‘good optical or large DSLR viewfinder’ is very rare and then only really appears in Full frame. Most APS-C DSLRs sold have a less than perfect and small OVF with >100% coverage. Any argument of APS-C OVF beating APS-C EVF is far from a done deal *today* never mind in two-five years time.
Will their next rant be about how bad digital sensors are and how they will never be as good as film?
Film is actually still better than digital sensors at the moment… maybe they are comparable for most people taking 4×6 photos, but for people that want balls to the walls detail and dynamic range digital isn’t there yet… not saying it wont ever get there but I honestly doubt it will because at some point the market for people wanting that balls to the walls level will be so small that sensor makers wont be able to justify the cost of the nth degree of dynamic range or detail.
With raw shooting who cares what you shadow detail you can “see” through ANY view finder? It’s going to be post processed anyway…
What you just wrote was “I don’t care how I frame when I take a shot, if something’s wrong, I’ll just fix it by post processing.” Note Michael’s example. He can’t crop the image to what he wants, because he cut off part of what he wanted because he couldn’t see it in the shadows. Hard to recover that when it isn’t there.
What you wrote is bollocks. I said NO SUCH THING.
ROFL
so is that guy blind without an viewfinder in front of his head? how about checking whats in the shadow before looking through that “horrible evf” if he has those issues.. i still think he just wants to see issues where there are none.
Look I have 2 Sony cameras both with EVF and frankly its not fun to shoot sunrises where you can see the sun with your eyes but can’t see where it is in the viewfinder.
Can you work around it ? Sure you can !
Do I want to work around it ? Absolutely NOT !
I don’t face such problems with OVFs and frankly I am surprised that just because people have embraced EVFs they can’t see that there are far far more people who was more than happy and prefer OVFs.
As much as I like some of the features of EVFs I don’t like shooting landscapes with an EVF.
“there are far far more people who was more than happy and prefer OVFs”
Really? Care to show us that research? And what do you mean you can’t see the sun in the viewfinder?
You’d think you know by now what the sun looks like. .. For me the largest benefit of the EVF is not having my eye exposed to direct sunlight when staring into it in backlit situations. Far more comfortable and less damaging.
Do you see so many people ditching their DSLRs and running to Sony for their EVFs ?
No one who has used my camera has been thoroughly impressed with the EVF and I mean no one.
I have gotten used to it no doubt since I have no choice in the matter since I lack the funds to change systems but mostly because I am happy with the strengths of the Sony system (live view AF, SSS and articulating screens).
The purpose of a viewfinder, at least an OVF, is decidedly not to show you the final picture; if that were true the OVFs were originally constructed for a purpose they could never fulfil.
The purpose of a viewfinder (again, an OVF at least) is to help you frame the picture, and it also lets you judge the scene as it looks, while framing the picture. Lowering the camera an inch doesn’t allow you to do those two things simultaneously.
For many people, half the pleasure of photography is judging the scene, and calculating the correct exposure based on what you see in the viewfinder. If you know how to do this, and know your camera and how different settings affect the outcome, then you don’t need to be shown the final outcome beforehand.
Accept that people are different. Some people don’t want their camera to do all the thinking and analysis for them (exposure simulation preview, live histogram etc.). They think that’s taking all the fun out of photography.
I think the whole OVF vs. EVF debate tells more about the difference between people, than the difference between technologies. Different mindsets, different priorities, different opinions about what photography is about etc.
I agree, though, that an EVF is very useful, if your style of photography is helped by what the EVF offers. Also agree that the OVFs in entry-level DSLRs leave a lot to be desired. I just find an OVF more pleasurable to use, and it is more useful to me than an EVF.
Oh, and lest someone thinks I’m an old geezer who can’t let go of the old times, I’m 36 years old and I took up photography as a hobby after the demise of film.
+1 to “Accept that people are different”.
I just wonder why they don’t make a hybrid to end this whole situation, debate, whatever you wanna call it.
Well said.
Personally, I prefer a tilting screen over an EV. It also has all the advantages of an electronic display, hovewer its not so good in bright sunlight.
An OVF could be much better in certain situations, like low light photography (You wouldn’t see anything except noise in an EVF)..
>You wouldn’t see anything except noise in an EVF)..
Have you ever tried to put anything faster than kits lens on camera?
Regardless of how fast the lens is, picture in OVF is no brighter than outside, while EVF gains light with every f-stop.
No, just checked some EVFs low light capabilities in stores and i wasn’t impressed. I guess all the time the kit lens was attached. So, is that comparable to an OVF, or just better then EVF while kit lens is attached?
With a bright lens, EVF is brighter than OVF, which is a big advantage in low light.
Very true! Seing what the camera sees is nice for the beginners and advanced users, pros KNOW what the camera sees, most of the time the EVF distracted me. I sold a99 and all my sony equipment a week ago. Optical finders are needed for framing and composition work, allow for tracking with the speed of light (something we took for granted) and let you practice these skills in off mode.
The NEX line will never have an SLR optical finder, the EVF is the only option. Cutting out any light leak with a better eye cup will improve your experience in bright light with them drastically.
Professionals have been using electronic finders for YEARS. But I guess video professionals don’t count in your world.
Stop with the professional crap, it has sod all to do with somebody is getting paid for their work or not.
Name ONE professional photographer who used EVFs for years. You are right, videographers don’t count in my world. They don’t have to deliver PRINTS. Shooting video with an EVF is one thing and trying to get a wonderful photo of a moving child with studio lighting is another. Videographers don’t give a damn about our trade, why should we care? I hate it when Sony decides what’s right for me and leaves me no option. I tried their new spice (had a99 for 4 months) and sold my whole Sony kit. So you may leave your videographer argument to yourself, it’s irrelevant to photographers. A-mount was all about photography and then all of a sudden became videography oriented.
EVF the way it is is ok for amateur cameras and won’t slice it for PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS. I am one, I earn my living with it and I’ll say it again. a99 FAILED for me. It lags behind the action I need to catch.
P.S. I know Sony can make one that will work in the future.
“Pros know what the camera sees” – that isn’t an argument for anything.
You say OVFs are needed for framing and composition work, I don’t see how an EVF can’t do that. Tracking is certainly not there yet, but it is not the disaster some make it out to be.
No, the functionality of the original viewfinder was limited because it couldn’t show you an approximation of the final image. If it could, they would have done so.
An EVF can and expands the functionality.
Cars have evaluated like that too with a lot more functionality today than many decades ago. Were/are new developments better at everything? No. Some still prefer to do manual shifting rather than have computers decide and change gears. But let’s not fool ourseves into thinking that the current developments are a side track and classic designs will prevail.
It’s just like trying to tell an old person that the new smartphones are more useful than the old basic one they’ve used for the past decade. They just don’t see the advantages. Happy with what they got. Eventually you just have to smile and let it be. Some will see it (I helped A WELL seasoned couple at Walmart, both rockin Galaxy Notes. They loved Em.) and some just can’t grasp it, and never will.
The concept “what you see is what you get” is just beyond some people I guess. Maybe it feels like cheating to them or something, who knows. I’d rather be viewing what my picture is actually going to look like.
Well, if you’re going to be age-ist, then I guess you don’t mind me being age-ist right back at ‘ya.
The trouble with some younger folk who think that smartphones are the answer to everything is that they don’t have enough experience to know when certain older things are valuable and why. They tend to think “new” is always better. Sometimes it isn’t.
OVFs and EVFs both have pluses and minuses. Personally, I’m amazed that the old mechanical OVF system can still beat an EVF system in terms of capturing a precise moment in time. Even a 1/120 second lag in display is enough to put the EVF at an immediate disadvantage to critically timed shots. On the other hand, seeing the flat two-dimensional rendering of an image definitely helps in composing. Too many OVF users think that what they see is what they get, but it almost never is, nor do they see it “flat” in the way the final image will be. They often think they’re capturing “depth” when they aren’t.
I use cameras that have OVFs, I use cameras that have EVFs. I have had to learn how to adjust to both because, as I noted above, they both have issues. Michael’s comment about contrast is one of EVFs weaknesses. Coupled with the fact that in low light the brightness of the EVF damages your eye’s regular adaptation to light, and it can be doubly problematic at times. That doesn’t make EVFs bad, per se. It just means that they aren’t perfect and can be problematic to certain tasks.
+1
“Even a 1/120 second lag in display is enough to put the EVF at an immediate disadvantage to critically timed shots.”
No it isn’t. That amount of lag is imperceptible to the human eye – then you have to factor in shutter lag. You are such a master of misinformation, that it’s actually quite disgraceful.
Tell that to a sports shooter (or many wildlife shooters).
Time from something happening to a photo being taken is a cumulative sequence: EVF visual lag, human response time, shutter lag. The only way I can time things on a single shot with the Sony EVFs is to use a two-eye technique (similar to what filmmakers and videographers have long done: right eye at the viewfinder, left eye open not blocked by camera). Fortunately, the NEX-6/7 allow you to do that, but it’s not a natural thing to do, it’s a learned trait.
For casual timing, EVFs are now practical. For critical timing, I’ll stand by what I wrote. You won’t find many EVFs on the sidelines of pro sports games.
You shouldn’t talk about EVF if you didn’t get a Sony with an OLED EVF ( A65, A77, A99, NEX 6&7…) and shot with it for a couple of weeks! If you have done that already and still think EVFs don’t have enough contrast, etc.., then I’m sorry but you’ll have to review your concepts and knowledge on photography! Just as simple as that. Get real, I guess you’re one of those which in the 70’s said Minolta was going nowhere with their Maxxum Autofocus!!!
Maxum autofocus could be TURNED OFF when it wasn’t working right. I can’t use my evf because its never in focus. If I have to use it very long it gives me a headache. No matter how much I adjust it. I am so looking forward to them getting better right now I avoid using it as much as I can.
Randy, you should have your camera’s EVF checked by Sony. I’ve had KM A1, Sony A55, A77 and now have A99 and could always find the perfect adjustment for my eyesight with the little diopter dial. I wore glasses most of my life but just took them out when shooting. Recently I had catarat surgery ( I’m 64 )and wear glasses only for night driving now, but never when I photograph!
You could try the diopter adjustment on the side of the viewfinder. If that doesn’t work, there are correctional add-ons that can address a viewfinder that isn’t in focus for your eyes. If none of that works then there is probably something wrong with your camera and you should send it in as was suggested. Have someone else use it and see if they have any problems.
So do you think if an EVF isn’t the best tool for someone, he doesn’t know too much about photography?
Comments like this makes it clear you have no idea about what I have and haven’t done. I own both a NEX-6 and NEX-7, use them regularly, and have compared them to lots of other cameras.
Moreover, your comment about contrast is backwards: you’re not reading what Michael at LL wrote or what I wrote: EVFs have too much contrast and low dynamic range. That blocks up the shadows and highlights to the point where you can’t always differentiate what’s happening in those areas.
How am I being ageist? I just said I helped an old couple who HAD smart phones. I only said SOME older people are like that. It was just an example, and when it comes to cameras, I’m simply referring to those set in their ways. If you like OVFs, then cool deal. We’re simply saying that the benefits outweigh the supposed disadvantages. That’s all.
Read what you wrote. It isn’t what you just said ;~). Your exact words were “It’s just like trying to tell an old person that the new smartphones are more useful than the old basic one they’ve used for the past decade.” That’s a generalization, not saying you had helped ONE old couple with smart phones. You may have thought you were writing something else, but you didn’t. What you wrote can only be interpreted as generalized, not specific.
Further, trying to defend yourself by saying “I’m simply referring to those set in their ways” is just refining your ageist target slightly to be some vaguely specified subset.
I would say that you need to learn how others interpret what you say (write) better. You think you’re saying one thing, but we’re hearing something different.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have actually helped several older people with their smartphones. I just brought that one up cause it was the most interesting to me. They had Galaxy Notes, which are fairly technical phones. I still stand by the fact that I said “some will see it, some won’t” but I agree, the presentation came across as a generalization. There ARE older people who simply won’t listen to the idea of a smartphone, but there are also those who can also keep up with the best of them.
Also, “those set in their ways” can refer to anyone. So yeah, vague, which is realistic to that statement. I’ve met 30 year olds that are set in their ways. Some people get comfortable and stick to it. It doesn’t have to be a subset of anything. If you read more into it, that’s your call, but it’s not what I meant. I could have further elaborated that I’ve helped many people, including teenagers, that want nothing to do with smartphones (shocking, I know, but it’s happened.) I guess my real failing is not understanding that people will always think about things in the most self-attributing way, regardless of how broad the audience is. Refinement needed…
Anyways, to end this book, I think I’ll just say… excuse the expediency of my brain, it doesn’t always interpret things exactly the same as you.
Also, why am I talking about phones? I just got an A65. Woot!!! Goodbye tax return!
When you’re making a phone call, just exactly what are all the advantages of a smartphone over a telephone?
I mean, if I’m expecting a call or need to make one, what use is Youtube, Facebook or Dropbox to me?
You may not be able to function without all the functionality of a smartphone. For that I pity you.
I don’t know man, what would you use it for? You don’t use it… so you can’t know.
I’m not dependent on it any more than you are on your regular phone. In that sense your are hypocritical. Saying older phone technology is better to be dependent on because it happened more decades ago is simply being obtuse. Especially considering it’s the same thing, just with more features. An upgrade, as it were.
It’s about convenience, not dependence for functionality.
If you fail to investigate the unknown, you will forever live in fear of it. Keep an open mind.
there’s no “contrast” problem with EVF in LCD technology like this one in A55!
I just can’t go back to my A330 OVF after I have my A57…
a99’s EVF with histogram is infinitely more useful than OVF and a camera’s metering guess between -2 and +2. I’ve shot some street/travel in JPEG and like the results. When there’s no time to take test shots, I don’t need to shoot RAW just in case like I did with my last Canon.
Pro or con, the argument usually assumes that the screens in optical viewfinders are accurately placed. Mine (on a Pentax) was not. So I replaced it with a Haoda screen. It’s better, after some shimming, but still not bang on. The EVF would solve this problem because what you see is what you get in terms of focus.
Then there’s the factor of residual spherical aberration. Even if the lens is correctly focused wide open, it might be back focused at f/8. With stopped-down focusing on an EVF, RSA would not be a consideration. I prefer looking through an optical viewfinder, but intend to switch soon for these two reasons.
To be honest, when I am looking through the view finder I am not checking contrast very much. I am looking at composition. I shoot RAW and trust my 20+ years of experience when it comes to exposure. That has been the case with film or digital.
THIS
But he’s saying low contrast makes composition challenging because if you meter for something in front but then want background elements in a certain position in your frame you can’t do it because you can’t see the shadow detail.
Honestly people the example is right there in the article and most of you are acting like it’s not there. Everyone seems so desperate to vindicate that they made the best and only possible sensible choice and they have the absolute best possible to thing. Why does one have to totally supersede the other? Why does everyone who doesn’t use the thing YOU like have to be dumb or ignorant or clinging to the past? Ridiculous.
The example isn’t a real example, it’s an interpretation of what the writer thinks the difference is like with his setup. Not the actual difference between what the EVF shows and the actual picture shows with optimal settings.
For me the EVF are still not good enough and would become interesting, if the following developments targets are met
* Resolutions so high, that pixel structure is not visible
* Refresh rates so high that there is no loss of sharpness or anything when you pan the camera
* No flicker due to interference with artificial illumination
* No delay in showing the real scene again after a shot was taken
* Realtime display of the actual scene
* Color and Contrast adjustabel independet of the image setting.
* Dynamik range same as sensor
So far the EVF does not show the contrast of the real scene and also not what the sensor is capable of recording. In sunlight shadows are just black. Ina ddition it is sometime nice to preview the final image, bt not always.
Demanding, eh?
Just keep waiting…
I might suggest you take a seat by the shade so you don’t get too hot in the sun and burn waiting?
Next you will ask for a 10mm wide angle parallax-corrected lens?
“Resolutions so high, that pixel structure is not visible”
Seems like 2MP is enough to solve this.
“Refresh rates so high that there is no loss of sharpness or anything when you pan the camera”
This is probably the main real issue; though it gets half as bad each year.
“No delay in showing the real scene again after a shot was taken”
This is solved in the current generation.
“Realtime display of the actual scene”
Not sure what you mean.
“Color and Contrast adjustabel independet of the image setting”
This is a software issue and should be possible right now. They just need to do it.
“Dynamik range same as sensor”
Until this happens, it would be nice to have a thumb dial control the gamma of the EVF across the range of the sensor.
There’s little point in having as much DR as the sensor when no output medium can show this to begin with and 14 stops of DR would looks horrible flat anyway. The sensor DR is the starting point from where we compress to taste and fit the output medium.
Thus you need DR as good as the best output medium and contrast curves that can reflect *any* (extreme) setting that you (in a RAW converter) or the jpeg engine (DRO and such) can cook. Which mostly means an adjustment of curves, compressing the DR captured by the sensor.
From the specsheets, the OLED viewfinders are already capable of DR in line with higher end output devices so now it comes down to curves (software) driving the EVF.
This is getting to crux of Michael’s commentary. Our eyes work different than sensors. If the EVF doesn’t mimic the way our eye works, then we don’t see the same thing in an EVF as an OVF. Specifically, the compression of tonal ranges into what the EVF can produce is causing shadow areas to completely block up visually so that you can’t discern what is going on there (highlights have a similar problem).
Thing is, most people react well to contrast, which is what EVFs have a lot of, especially when you’ve dialed in things like saturation and other settings in your JPEG controls. But that doesn’t help you compose precisely; it hinders precise composition (the 100% view notwithstanding). Most of the comments I’ve seen so far amount to “I’ll take the advantages of the EVF over precise composition.” That’s fine as long as you understand what you’re giving up. Those of us who primarily shoot with OVF also have to understand what we give up, too.
@Thom Hogan
“If the EVF doesn’t mimic the way our eye works, then we don’t see the same thing in an EVF as an OVF.” Everyone’s eyes are different.
“Specifically, the compression of tonal ranges into what the EVF can produce is causing shadow areas to completely block up visually so that you can’t discern what is going on there ” on the E-M5 you can use the shadow/highlight tool.
“But that doesn’t help you compose precisely; it hinders precise composition” I beg to differ.
A key advantage of the EVF is WYSIWYG – it makes learning photography a whole lot easier – instantly seeing what the effects of your changes to aperture, shutter, etc are doing to your image with or without a histogram (which is also better). By extension, it makes teaching photography so much easier – people ‘get’ it when you press the buttons instantly. Then once you learn on these tools… the OVF feels dated and horrible. The youth of today, brought up on cellphones and compacts, will swing to the EVF as the way of the future. Film, single lens reflex mirror and OVF dinosaurs can fight and rant all they like, but the reason why they’re so vociferous now is because of the sinking realisation their time is up.
Focus Peaking is only half EVF the story. The other half is Zebra Stripes for exposure. http://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/viewfinder/zebra-stripes.html So why doesn’t Sony include Zebra Stripes like it does in their Broadcast Video cameras?? This one simple feature could go a long ways to converting the OVF fans.
Fans??? Do you realy think that if someone find something usefull and think it suites his needs, he must be a fan of it and devote his life to that thing??? You live your life this way?
@Rob, are you really that thin-skinned?? I didn’t say OVF Fanboi, OVF Snob or EVF Hater, but you act like I did. What term would you use for someone who prefers OVFs??
I started using EVFs on Broadcast Video cameras waaay back in the 1980s. At this point I own four DSLRs with OVFs and none with EVFs. But I doubt that I’ll buy another camera that has an OVF. Time marches on and I think that EVFs, done right, are the future. YMMV.
I thought you opposed something good (EVF) with something bad (OVF) and I couldn’t stand that.
@rob:
> Fans??? Do you realy think that if someone find
> something usefull and think it suites his needs,
> he must be a fan of it and devote his life to
> that thing??? You live your life this way?
That’s not what “fan” means.
A “fan” is someone who likes something, not necessarily to the extent that they “devote [their] life to that thing”. It is fair to say that we are all “fans” of each and everything we like and actively choose or pursue: our preferred TV shows, our favorite foods, maybe certain brands/models of cars, authors, etc.
If you are NOT a fan of something, then either you are neutral or actively dislike it; the phrase “I am not a fan of…” tends to IMPLY that you actually dislike it, or at least find it problematic in some way.
Possibly you’re thinking of “fanboy/fanboi” which DOES carry the more-extreme implications you describe.
A possible reason is that for a stills camera, RAW complicates everything since there is so much more dynamic range.
It’s similar to how the live histogram is misleading since it only shows the frequency response of what would be the Jpeg output, even when not shooting Jpeg.
Zebra stripes would certainly be a nice though. Especially when doing things like ETTR to reduce noise, while avoiding clipping.
In the end, both EVF and OVF are tools to help the user capture the image of their choice. But even beyond the obvious WYSIWYG advantage, EVF has the exponential advantage of offering tools within tools, such as the already implemented focus peaking, e-level, and on-screen histogram. Adding Zebra would be another fabulous live tool. Who knows what other tools-within-tools might aid better capture in the future.
These “assistants” are not a crutch, nor a lazy person’s shortcut for learning photography, nor are they a replacement for talent or good ideas. They add both power-steering to turbo-boosting to our ability to assess our options and choices for focus and exposure, quickly allowing our brains to spend more energy and attention on things like composition, story/message, or (when shooting living things aware of the camera) engaging the subject and drawing out a better on-camera performance.
You can be a brilliant artist and get amazing results using either electronic or optical viewfinders. But I would argue that EVF is already vastly superior given that users of all skill levels can output higher ratios of good images in less time, while also simultaneously spending more time and energy on composition, story and subject.
The best photographers beautifully balance art with the science of light. The trajectory of EVF doesn’t remove nor dumb-down the science. It empowers it and expedites it, allowing us to greater explore and improve our art.
Actually the funny thing is – Michael Reichmann unintentionally used the solution to his EVF problem but completely missed the point on it in his rant. He did edit the both photos so that one looked like an OVF would show it and the other like an EVF would show it. He presents this both shots on his blog which will get read on tft devices with similar low contrast ratio like the EVF he rants about. But… duh… we can actually see what he wants to see in the left photo! There is no reason to think that even the current EVF would not be able to show an image like the left – the problem ist just the processing. You already can e.g. use DRO5 and see its effect (Live!) in the EVF when pressing the DOF-Preview-button. We already have an EVF-Mode were the “effects” are not displayed – why not extending this mode to open shadows and drag highlights in? Enabling users to frame in high contrast situations? So the solution is not “Hybrid-OVF” but simply better processing and options for the existing EVF. This even could be fixed in software alone.
Look forwards, not backwards.
there are more advantages on EVF over OFV than OVF on EVF, even just a few years into development versus a technology that has basically reached it development end. Contrast is just one thing but the real time DOF, exposure of frames are more important than just contrast, at least to me.
This is similar to the early day film vs digital kind of argument, I have been using some very best cameras with OVF over the last 25 years and EVF to me is the future, and a step up.
It depends on the situation. I can’t believe most of the commenters can’t think outside the box at all.
In the early days film was better then digital.
It’s the early days for EVF and OVF is better for now.
Someday isn’t quite here yet.
+ 1
Define early days. EVF’s offer more overall functionality already. It’s only a few areas where OVF’s have a benefit still. Some just on paper, some still in reality.
There’s a good reason why 95% of all cameras are already sold without OVF’s besides cost. They don’t add enough to the user to warrant the trouble implementing them.
Those 95 percent are toys. Look at the high end cameras from the big two camera makers to see what is the best choice at this time. If Sony was in search of quality they would support both or use a hybrid system.
95% of the camera users just called you a snob.
Back to the topic, high end cameras are stuck with the technology used for the lack of an alternative: flipping mirrors. It’s a fallacy to think that because they are high end, they must use OVF’s. There simply wasn’t viable choice.
The fact that external monitors in studios gained popularity, shows there was/is a potential market for an alternative.
Many high end video cameras costing a multitude of those high end still “toys”, have used EVF’s for many years.
Oh and hybrid viewfinder systems aren’t a good idea for system cameras with more than a few focal lengths. Way more drawbacks than gains. For example a darker OVF that can’t cover all the FL’s, especially the longer ones. Parallax, etc.
At the risk of being flamed I will say that while the benefits of EVFs cannot be disputed, I personally find EVFs heavy handed in their rendering/processing of natural light and there are times when seeing subtleties in lighting is critical in the depiction of an image. Seeing light is important to many photgraphers and in photographs and I hope that with time EVFs will become more sensitive/accurate.
Use your eyes then. 😉 But whatever your eyes see isn’t going to be what the sensor captures and isn’t going to be what ACR spits out as a jpeg.
That’s what is so pointless about OVF users banging on about shadow detail and the like. Whatever you saw at the time isn’t what your photograph is going to look like after your tweaked the levels in ACR.
It’ll be a memory of what you think you saw and the result with be how you think it looks best. The device you capture the image with is irrelevant at that point.
No current EVF can show you what the sensor sees either. They all have a narrower DR than the sensor, and they have a color space that is smaller than sRGB. An OVF shows you more than the sensor sees, an EVF shows you less. Pick the one that suits you best.
I personally don’t look through the VF to see what the final output will look like, I want to see how the scene looks to my eyes at the same time as I compose the picture. This helps me get the framing and exposure right in a way that an EVF doesn’t. If that style of photography doesn’t suit you, that’s fine. We’re all different people.
I’m sure I’ll adjust to EVF shooting in the future, when there are no OVF cameras to be had, but until then I’ll enjoy photography the way I prefer it.
As explained elsewhere, the sensor DR is far less important than the output medium DR. The EVF merely needs to represent/approximate what the output medium will show, after compression of the sensor DR (thus similar contrast curves as the final displayed picture). But FYI, the OLED EVF is capable of a 10,000 to 1 contrast ratio, which equals 14 stops.
As for the colour gamut, the current OLED can cover more than the SRGB gamut already, up to 90% of the NTSC gamut.
Oh and the stated contrast ratio should not be confused with contrast ratio’s in that range given for most LCD TV’s and monitors, as those are “dynamic” ratio’s (read: rather faked). The one I gave is a static one.
Only one thing… EVF rulez!! 😉
And Digital will never replace the Film…
🙂
😀
I can use an EVF, but prefer and OVF. IMO it was very silly of Sony to offer buyers only EVF’s when most prefer OVF’s.
EVF’s are ok inside, but bad outside with lack of details and poor DR. You can use them, but they suck compared to an optical finder. I’ve been using my OVF DSLR for a few weeks now, and I don’t miss the EVF SLT finder one bit.
What evidence is there that most prefer OVF? Sony said that the success of the A55 was the reason that the A77 has an EVF.
If Nikon put the A77 EVF on the D7100 are you saying that it wouldn’t sell? Utter crap mate!
+ 1
The LL article, as will always be the case with OVF pundits, misses the point.
The article starts by showing two versions of the same image to show (simulate) what they would see through the viewfinder. The shots were taken with an EVF camera, the NEX7.
But the images actually work against the authors intent.
Yes, the EVF doesn’t show the shadow tonality in the background – but (and this is the important part) the EVF camera did the same job of capturing the scene and rendering those background shadows just as an OVF camera would. After all, thats the job of the sensor. Again, it was the NEX7 that was used to take that shot and the background shadow detail is there. So, what exactly is the problem again?
Secondly, even if you could ‘see’ those shadow details with an OVF, the foreground subject is the subject that is being exposed for. There is very little you could do, aside from DRO or other gimmickry to get those shadow details to appear any more brightly than they do based on the exposure for the primary subject. And an OVF is not going to help you with there either since it will never be able to show you just how good a job you are doing with your exposure settings before you take the shot.
EVF’s will probably improve in this area, but even if they stayed where they are they beat the pants off of an OVF for sheer shooting utility. Sony’s implementation is the most complete in my mind – exposure is simulated very, very well (switch to manual and set some impossible settings for the current scene and the viewfinder goes black – showing you a true what you see is what you get, before you take the shot). Surprisingly, many other EVF cameras do NOT do this.
While not OVF fan, I admit they have strengths as well.
Most EVF slowly adapt to scene illuminance changes; this begs me off. This will be fixed some day, but it’s not going to be soon.
Evf makes manual shooting so much faster and accurate, plus if are using a optical finder, you might as well use film, because your guessing, you have a meter but they are not always accurate, but the evf you can see, and with preview it’s even better. I would think any Photographer would like to know how it’s going to come out. Makes now sense to work and not no if it what you want. Is the ev perfect no, but it’s better the the lcd at the back of the camera. If you shoot outside and have trouble seeing? It’s the light coming to your other eye, not the ev. Wear a hat to cover your other eye and it will be fine.
Scooby Doo you clearly don’t know OVF shooters very well. Most folks are quite used to their DSLR and know very well how they expose, experienced photographers just don’t need or desire EVF’s.
They can actually get in the way at times. I’m ok with EVF’s but they bring as many problems as they do solutions. IMO Sony made a move too soon on this and shutting down the OVF line was a mistake. Top 2 makers are 100% OVF and they are selling hand over fist..buyers just do not care much about EVF’s
“Top 2 makers are 100% OVF and they are selling hand over fist..buyers just do not care much about EVF’s”
Utter rubbish. Whatever the top two put out, people will buy it. You really are deluded if you think that a CaNikon with EVF wouldn’t be popular.
Point being nobody really cares about EVF’s and it’s not a sales advantage for Sony at all. The only deluded people are Sony who thought they’d storm the market. They’re on a wimpy 6% and getting wiped out.
They are not making the products people want
Gives us a reference for that 6%, a recent one for global sales.
Last time I checked it was 15% for all ILC’s (none of which use an OVF), about 3 times higher than Pentax, who’s attempting to take on the big boys with OVF’s and about 3 to 4 times the absolute sales before they introduced the EVF ILC cameras.
BAHHH if Sony had used an ovf, everyone here would sanctify that technology, but now sony is using the evf and you all defend that crappiness ahahhaha FANBOYRUMORS
with most alpha cameras and nex using EVF.. i dont see the reason why anybody would still continue to read sonyalpharumors if they weren’t satisfied with EVFs.
I love my EVF on my NEX-6, far from being a disadvantage that it has less dynamic range and contrast than the naked eye, it’s an advantage to see something closer to what the sensor will actually capture than my eye would! Allows me to adjust obvious over/underexposure more intuitively by eye.
As much as I love a well crafted OVF, (Contax RTSIII, Leica R9), with a fine prism and exquisite ground glass and excellent optical magnifier… the fact of the matter, is that OVF cannot be made to the tolerances necessary for critically accurate representation of what the super high MP sensors are capable of recording.
One look through the Nikon D800, Pentax 645D, Leica S2, and Hassy MF forums will confirm that the biggest problem with those fine cameras is that the viewfinder is incapable translating the sensor quality. Critical wide open focus is more difficult than ever, even on the best cameras in the world with decades of OVF experience and no cost barriers.
EVF is the answer.
But, the sophomoric designers at Sony don’t understand the implementation yet. Their goal was to simply make it close to as good as OVF. That’s not enough.
All they need do is set the EVF back, for greater nose relief, and ensure an incredibly high quality optical magnifier to view it with, super large, round, with fabulous eye relief, and a marvelous rubber eyecup to keep the light out. Could be accomplished with the same EVF tech as current. Just do it right, and address the complaints that togs have been screaming about since the small viewfinders of digital have plagued our industry.
The current EVF should be magnified extra large, like looking through a giant Fuji GX680 viewfinder, or Olympus OM-1. That would sell itself and reviewers would be raving crazy about it. It would change the industry.
Forget just magnifying it super large like a 6×7 or 6×9 camera’s OVF, why not make the EVF screen itself super large and magnify it normally?
Wouldn’t that mean that we wouldn’t have to wait for SONY to be able to pack more pixels into a smaller area too? Give me a huge, hump-like mound on top of my camera anyday (like an Exakta 66), of it’ll mean that I’ll get a bigger view and can manually focus easier.
Oh yeah… And make the refresh rate MUCH MUCH better and fix the blocked up, mucky blacks. The a99’s EVF just isn’t a professional tool on par with the a900’s OVF yet.
Well said.
I have both an A900 and an A77, and I can tell you for me that EVF is good when inside, but outside I need the OVF. (and the A900 is one of the best, so it’s not the same as comparing the EVF against an APS-C OVF)
And the problem for me is exactly as you’ve stated: the EVF is a physical screen and light leakage into the viewfinder hits the screen, having a similar effect to bright sunlight on the screen of a mobile phone.
And my glasses are the main cause of the light leakage – with the sun off to the left or the right, I can hardly see the screen at all. I’ve even taken an oversized eyecup from a Nikon and glued it with a Sony fitting, which then renders the viewfinder 10 times more usable for me.
Extra eye-relief, and making sure stray light doesn’t reach the screen would solve most of my issues with an EVF; would improve contrast and mean that Sony might make a camera that I can use outside with my glasses – currently they make none!
It’s not that I hate the EVF, I love some of the advantages it brings; it’s simply that I can’t rely on it being even usable in certain light conditions.
These people will never understand that under bright sunlight it is dark because you see exactly what the sensor sees, and that is what you are going to get in the final image, that is the point of the EVFs
Why, with all the potential of EVF, is it still requiring us to look through a tiny peep hole and smash our noses sideways onto camera… still? Would be so easy to fix that with EVF. I really thought the a33/55 cameras were going to set a new standard for extra nose relief. Very disappointed that didn’t translate to subsequent Alphas.
+ 1
EVFs are horrible compared to an OVF, but the latter isn’t that great either, if it isn’t at least FF sized and covers 100% or close to that .
Simple solution: fully (!) articulated, high quality displays .
It’s an EVF, only it’s large, and easy to get used to . Add a foldable screen with a loupe, and you will know what all the medium format shooters of yesteryears have always been so crazy about .
The body gets a little bigger where it hurts the least – very much unlike using a screw-on VF, like the one that comes for the Nex 5N etc..
Different strokes for different folks. I’ve used both OVFs and EVFs in my career and prefer the latter. Both have advantages and disadvantages. How much the disadvantages affect you depends entirely on your tastes and shooting style.
I shot with a Leica M8 for years and managed to get beautiful photos with it despite its warts. When the NEX-7 came along I learned to use it and managed to take lovely photos with it as well.
The point is that you have to learn to use the tool. If the features suit you, rock on and make beautiful photos. If it doesn’t, continue to search for one that does. I love rangefinders, but they are not for shooting ballet.
The OVF vs. EVF is a rehash of film vs. digital which is a rehash of LPs vs. CDs (it all boils down to analog vs. digital). Think about this: when SLRs came out, some folks claimed that the technology (despite its obvious advantages) will never be better than coupled rangefinders. When photography started in 1852, there were those who said it could never replace the painted portrait. Resistance to change is part of human nature. You get pushed out of your comfort zone and you want to go back.
But there are the “crazy ones” (as Steve Jobs put it) who embrace the changes and push the envelope. They discover what the new tool has to offer and what it doesn’t and make it their own. They don’t care what anyone thinks about what they are doing or how they are doing it. They are pioneers of a new medium and they like it that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE
I don’t like television because it doesn’t quite capture reality as I see it, that’s why staring out the window is a vastly superior form of entertainment.
Hahaha, but all joking aside, his argument is weak. If I were only concerned with how the world looked to my eyes, I wouldn’t bother putting a camera in the way. That said, since I am a photographer and I rely on a camera as a tool, I’d rather see what the camera is seeing. Calling an EVF a limiting factor is silly, because it is really no more limiting than the camera itself in its ability to “capture” what our eyes see.
I realize this debate involves subjective preference, and we all have an opinion. That said, what is actually fact, is that I have never before worked as efficiently as I do with my a99. The EVF in my opinion has made the camera, as a tool, complete.
“If I were only concerned with how the world looked to my eyes, I wouldn’t bother putting a camera in the way.”
For some people, the point is being able to see and evaluate the scene with your own eyes, at the same time as you compose the picture with the aid of the VF. I actually nail composition, focus and exposure more accurately that way, than by seeing a preview of the final image through an EVF. It’s a matter of shooting style and technique.
“Calling an EVF a limiting factor is silly, because it is really no more limiting than the camera itself in its ability to “capture” what our eyes see.”
Actually, it is slightly more limiting, because no current EVF can show you the same DR and color gamut as the sensor captures.
“For some people, the point is being able to see and evaluate the scene with your own eyes, at the same time as you compose the picture with the aid of the VF. I actually nail composition, focus and exposure more accurately that way, than by seeing a preview of the final image through an EVF. It’s a matter of shooting style and technique.”
Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
I guess the difference for me is that I choose to evaluate the scene and visualize the shot before I even put the camera to my eye. When I lift the camera, I more often then not know exactly the shot I am trying to capture. And the EVF has proved far more effective in allowing me to quickly secure the shot as I want it to be.
The Luminous Landscape person (people) should stick with big camera landscape photography. Their street photography is terrible, the images make stereotypes of cultures different then theirs. You don’t see many Mexicans going to Canada photographing overweight photographers in front of their Epson printer. The EVF has worked well for both the formal and vernacular images I’ve made over the full range of lighting situations. The EVF is just a tool , and like all tools it has it’s limitations
optical VF is pleasing to the eye (like the one on my old 5D) but it can’t shoot in the dark the same way that my NEX-6 can, and it isn’t as useful for focusing fast lenses (with peaking)… so while there is still an emotional connection to optical VFs, I’m all in with NEX for practical reasons… that said, I’m all for Sony constantly improving the EVF (and putting out an FF NEX camera 😉
seriously guys.. differences between latest EVF and OVF is so minimal that these discussions about which one is better is so ridiculous! stop whining and go shooting.. hahaha
As much as I admire and respect Luminous Landscape I think the boys had gotten bored and were thrashing around for something to write. An eye level viewfinder reinstates the joy of taking pictures in bright sun. Holding a camera at arms length while attempting to compose a picture might be somewhat like Edward Weston trying to compose an image on his view camera without the dark cloth.
The crushed shadows in the Sony OLED viewfinder is well known and widely reported. So anyone shocked an experienced photographer is saying that it ain’t there yet? I’m not. Sony should re-launch OVF models and put back the i-iso hot shoe.
I don’t understand most of the above comments. I use both a Sony A57 (16MP EVF) and Sony A580 (16MP OVF). I use both bodies with a Sony 70-400 (great lens). I prefer the A57 but under harsh and high contrast lighting conditions, the EVF is simply unusable so I switch to the OVF body. I have shot thousands of images with each body, and under some conditions, EVF is really problematic.
Focus peaking is reason enough for me to love the EVF in my NEX cameras. I use them with my 30-year old Nikon glass, so of course focusing is manual. Focus peaking makes using them super easy.
Well, some hate Merkel for destroying Europe, some hate the regime in Northern Korea, some poeple loved to hate late JR Ewing and some prefer to do this with electronic viewfinders – but one way or the other: life sucks.
Awesome. 10 messages posted, 0 showed up sofar. Great website.
Yep, this does happen regularly. But we should be seeing a new comment system at some point.
Hmm, maybe I should resort to messages that conists of less than 20 words. The meaningless ones.
Or split them up:
Do those mentioning EVF lag take into account shutterlag too? The latter is a multitude longer to begin with. -continued in the next post-
Which means that for the whole cycle including EVF lag, even when prefocused, for example an A57 (or 5N plus EVF) has a shorter lag than pretty much every OVF DSLR below a thousand dollars. – continued…-
No mirror flip helps here. Hi Tom.
OVF/EVF arguments tend to be abstracted to the point religious crusade. The best EVF in the world is far better than the worst OVF, and visa versa.
I’d rather think in terms of *an* OVF verses *an* EVF. To me the A99’s viewfinder is somewhat, but not prohibitively worse than that A900’s with a M screen installed. I do like being able to magnify the image without attaching a big trunk to the back of my camera, however.
But as there is already a 3″ display, having most of the usage merits except visual correction issues, isn’t it simpler to have only a cheaper OVF, just as back up on some difficult lighting?
Simple how? In a mirrorless (or SLT) system that almost automatically implies parallax system. Which introduces a whole new set of issues.
You are right on the parallax. But when your difficult light is only for say 3% of the time, on articulated lcd, why not step back a little, maybe have a larger frame, for these few?
…replacing that 3% ease with some more battery life and 150eur ?
Obviously the answer could be it depends where you stand. If you r to pay 1200e for a “7” model then you should not miss it. If you r on 600 or less, “5” or “3” models, then 150 matter more. Sony has placed features well on this.
This reads like something that dip$hit Walt wrote
I don’t see the big deal. I use both and would never let the viewfinder be the deciding factor. I have no problem composing a shot with either VF. I prefer my 99 to my 850 without hesitation and that would be with either VF on the 99. I do find the EVF beneficial with fast shooting in changing light.
A couple of things – for those people dismissing the use of EVFs in videography, how often does your focus and exposure have to be capable of being blown up to the size of an imax screen?
And as for viewfinders in general – I manage to take perfectly good photos with cameras with nothing but a rectangle of wire for a viewfinder. Has anyone ever tried using a Hasselblad 500C with the original focussing screen? The viewfinder is a tool not a entertainment device. If you want to admire the scenery you don’t need a viewfinder to do that. If you want to photograph it without a “TV” in the way, leave a pinhole camera with photographic paper in there for a couple of hours and sit back and enjoy the scenery (and a beer)
As a tool, for me at least, an EVF is better than an OVF. Try, as has been mentioned using flash to take photos of moving people in a field on a night with no moonlight with an OVF. Try focus peaking, levelling, framing absolutely accurately etc…
My Dynax 7 35mm has a better VF than a Canon 5d MkII and it’s hugely superior to any of the EVF’s on the market by a major margin. I like focus peaking yes it’s great, but it’s simply not enough, flash photography is one area where the EVF is of no use at all.
The clarity of an OVF is unmatched, only a hybrid solution would be acceptable to some.
Like that article states, EVF’s are only getting more advanced. In my opinion, BOTH have their distinct advantages and disadvantages. I also tend to think that people have their own preferences and will use whatever they like regardless of that benefits. It really depends on the shot, at least from what I find. A nice post to spark a good debate. Thanks for the read!
Interesting to see what a heated debate this has generated! My 2p:
I have 3 viewfinder styles, all high quality amongst their genre. I have a D3, which has an excellent, very bright full frame viewfinder. I can only assume that people who think EVF is better for low light have never used full frame optical viewfinders. The D3/4 is hugely different to the APS-c finders and the prosumer line. For me an OVF is the only type that works for fast shooting. I can bring the camera to my eye, focus and shoot. It all happens quickly and the camera is very intuitive. The D3 is also faster for me to manual focus lenses but less accurate than EVF and there is a limit to accurate manual focusing in low light.
I also have a nex-7. My major issue is that its slow and some of this is the way its programmed. If you bring the camera to your eye to take a shot the EVF can have gone to sleep, it can be playing a previous photo etc. By doing more than one function it looses functionality as a finder. I find it slower to manual focus than an OVF (but more accurate). I generally have to use the zoom function as I find peaking inaccurate with most lenses. I will say that with a f1.1 lens, the EVF is impressive in the dark but its no use if you want to stop down (with rangefinder lenses anyway). EVFs also struggle with bright light much more than an EVF.
My third finder is a rangefinder (zeiss Ikon ZM). People seem to say that this is a bright finder but my D3 with a f1.4 lens is brighter. It gives accurate manual focusing in low light but only with an accurate rangefinder (its currently in for adjustment :() It is even more divorced from the final photo than an SLR OVF
In summary, for events work I think the EVF is still a good few years off competing with a pro-line OVF. There are some unique features that are nice with EVFs but for me they are still a second best for the majority of my shooting.
There comes a point when DSLRs and cameras in general are getting too powerful. There are few venues that some resolution photos can even be displayed at their full resolution. Some think it’s a waste, I don’t. Only if 1% of photographers even have the ability to have a photo that large and afford that high res print. The cameras are still amazing for everyone. And everyone gets to enjoy the hyper-real resolution of these amazing machines.
If you go to an art gallery or your own living room wall and look at 3 8×10 prints… one made each from 35mm, 2/14, and 8 x 10 sized cameras you will see a stunning difference. This has always been true of film and is still true of digitally captured images. If you don’t see a difference then I would suggest you have very low standards for photography.
Simple OVF days are numbered. See also: Augmented Reality
OVF is for old school grandpas. In fact, viewfinders in general are for grandpas and people that want to look cool. In 90% of photography you don’t even need the viewfinder.
Try photographing sports in bright sunlight with a tele lens.