Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reichman on EVF's and the future of optical viewfinders

Reply
Thread Tools

Reichman on EVF's and the future of optical viewfinders

 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
On 19/02/2011 11:28 a.m., Ofnuts wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 09:25 PM, Me wrote:
>> On 18/02/2011 8:07 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article<ijknd7$h1k$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me says...
>>>> These mirrors don't have a glass/air transition, as the glass is
>>>> "silvered" on the reflective side. Light loss is probably significant.

>
> To put that in photographic perspective .88**3 is .68 (roughly
> 1/sqrt(2)) so that's half a diaphragm stop. To emulate that, set your
> lens at max opening minus half a stop, and depress the DOF check button.
>

Except it might not work like that...
With an f1.4 lens, there's no visible difference in DOF preview VF
brightness unless stopped down to f2.8 or smaller. The reason for that
has been posted here before, but I've forgotten it. The maximum
brightness (on Nikon anyway) seems to be just below f2.8.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Odd thing is, mirror systems can be superior to prism systems and are,
> in different realms than cameras. Prisms induce chromatic aberration
> (something mirrors don't do) and absorb more light than the newest
> reflective surfaces of mirrors.


Prisms don't cause chromatic aberration if the light enters and exits
them at near vertical to the glass-air surface transition.

--
Chris Malcolm
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
> Resolutions of EVFs are going to increase in the future and for manual
> focus EVFs can show an enlarged section of the image, down to pixel
> level if you choose so, allowing precise manual focus, much more
> accurate than possible with an OVF.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


But according to Rich, if you need magnification you are blind.

David
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:21:06 +0100, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Wolfgang
>Weisselberg says...
>> And of course you loose resolution due to the rather limited
>> number of subpixels in an EVF.

>
>Resolutions of EVFs are going to increase in the future and for manual
>focus EVFs can show an enlarged section of the image, down to pixel
>level if you choose so, allowing precise manual focus, much more
>accurate than possible with an OVF.


Seems to me that would be best done with the rear display. If you're
being that meticulous with manual focus, and peeping that closely
while you do it, you're probably using a tripod and probably want to
have the camera as still as possible so you can actually see how
focused the image is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
On 02/19/2011 04:02 PM, John A. wrote:

> Seems to me that would be best done with the rear display. If you're
> being that meticulous with manual focus, and peeping that closely
> while you do it, you're probably using a tripod and probably want to
> have the camera as still as possible so you can actually see how
> focused the image is.


If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
(unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).
--
Bertrand
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
On 2/19/2011 1:19 PM, Ofnuts wrote:
> On 02/19/2011 04:02 PM, John A. wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that would be best done with the rear display. If you're
>> being that meticulous with manual focus, and peeping that closely
>> while you do it, you're probably using a tripod and probably want to
>> have the camera as still as possible so you can actually see how
>> focused the image is.

>
> If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
> focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
> (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
> appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).


True. that is why most long lenses are mounted on the tripod.
You get better balance.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2011
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Wolfgang
>Weisselberg says...
>> And of course you loose resolution due to the rather limited
>> number of subpixels in an EVF.

>
>Resolutions of EVFs are going to increase in the future and for manual
>focus EVFs can show an enlarged section of the image, down to pixel
>level if you choose so, allowing precise manual focus, much more
>accurate than possible with an OVF.


Probably eventually, but they're a long way from being very good.
Right now you can either have a big display with many pixels (but
still only about a million), or you can have a small display with low
resolution.

EVFs need small displays in order to fit within the camera.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) | The new GOP ideal

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2011
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg says...
>> And of course you loose resolution due to the rather limited
>> number of subpixels in an EVF.


> Resolutions of EVFs are going to increase in the future


Of course. And one day we'll have flying cars that do 250 miles
per gallon. And EVFs won't need significant power then, as we'll
all use tiny fuel cells to drive cameras for 10 years ofvheavy
duty use without a recharge --- and have the memory cards to
record these 10 years in uncompressed, RAW 40+ MPIX movies.

Just now EVFs aren't there yet, and I cannot buy and use a camera
from the future today.

> and for manual
> focus EVFs can show an enlarged section of the image,


.... it just takes several button presses ...

> down to pixel
> level if you choose so,


If the *camera* chooses so, you meant.
Or can you add that to a camera that misses that feature?

> allowing precise manual focus, much more
> accurate than possible with an OVF.


And in theory everything is fine.

And because you can enlarge, there is no need to increase the
resolution.

Of course, with OVFs you can use loupes and even focussing aids
in the focussing screen. Which flatten the playing field. And,
worse, you can switch to the monitor on the rear, which you can
also zoom --- and there goes your EVF advantage completely.

And of course, now you'll scream "sunlight". Which is easily
countered by e.g. transflexive monitors. Or OVFs with EVF
overlays, as we'll have before EVFs pick up significantly more
resolution --- there are already DSLRs that overlay your OVF with
additional information.

In the end, for non-compact (and no compromises) cameras with
viewfinders, EVF only will not happen, because choice is important
and EVF won't be able to completely replace OVF in my lifetime.

-Wolfgang

PS: When will they bring an EVF that correctly adjusts to all
brightnesses witnessed on this planet, from the glaring sun
on the ocean or over snowfields to the darkest caves? I don't
want to become nightblind looking into an EVF (and don't want
to use it as a beacon or torch) and I don't want it dark(ish)
when used in very bright circumstances. And I don't want it's
(and the sensor's) limited range when merely observing ---
if there's deep shadow and bright sunlight, I can see in both
in an OVF, I don't need to decide which to watch.

OVF isn't perfect, but much closer to the ideal viewfinder.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2011
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ofnuts says...
>> If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
>> focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
>> (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
>> appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).


> Remote AF control is not necessary,


And how do you manually focus pixel perfect, when your pixel
view completely blurs whenever you even breathe on the
camera, not to mention touch it to change the focus?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-20-2011
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 02:56:57 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> In article <4d6009b0$0$1253$(E-Mail Removed)>, Ofnuts says...
>>> If you do that you want to remotely control the AF because with long
>>> focal length touching the camera for focus is enough to blur the image
>>> (unless you have a rock-steady tripod). Then the focus is better
>>> appreciated on the display of the remote controller (PC).

>
>> Remote AF control is not necessary,

>
>And how do you manually focus pixel perfect, when your pixel
>view completely blurs whenever you even breathe on the
>camera, not to mention touch it to change the focus?


Via iterations of the part you deleted from his post, obviously.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Optical Viewfinders availability almost extinct aaronep@pacbell.net Digital Photography 41 07-20-2010 07:06 AM
a techie sort of question about p&s cameras and optical viewfinders albert Digital Photography 9 12-15-2008 07:03 PM
Why new cameras does not have optical viewfinders? zalek Digital Photography 45 02-06-2008 03:44 PM
Bell beginning to toll for reflexive optical viewfinders? RichA Digital Photography 26 08-20-2007 01:40 PM
P&S optical viewfinders Colin Brace Digital Photography 15 04-03-2006 10:06 PM



Advertisments