Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > More people realizing EVF's are better than optical viewfinders

Reply
Thread Tools

More people realizing EVF's are better than optical viewfinders

 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <220120140146053910%(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
>
> In article <200120141846557227%(E-Mail Removed)>, nospam
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > it's not a myth. evf will *always* be worse than optical. there is no
> > getting around the laws of physics.
> >
> > the differences will get smaller and smaller and evf will be 'almost as
> > good' or 'doesn't matter in most situations', but it will never match
> > optical, ever. it cannot.

>
> Agree completely.
>
> Try following a moving subject while shooting continuous with an evf.
> It goes black between frames and you lose your tracking.


This is an engineering issue. Video cameras almost all have EVFs and
they do not have that particular problem.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
On 21/01/2014 16:50, David Taylor wrote:
> On 21/01/2014 10:42, PeterN wrote:
>> On 1/21/2014 1:38 AM, David Taylor wrote:

> []
>>> I had the EVF camera as has a much greater telephoto reach than my DSLR
>>> and was much lighter to carry round.

>>
>> Do you pay any price in quality for that extra reach?

>
> Yes, but as I can neither afford, nor wish to carry a Nikon 500 mm lens
> it's a question of either an image at somewhat lesser quality or no
> image at all.
>
> In 35 mm equivalent, 450 mm at 24 MP with my Nikon DSLR + 70-300 mm
> lens, 810 mm at 18 MP with the Sony HX200V (which has rather more JPEG
> compression artefacts than the Nikon). For the final image size I
> require, either is adequate, although the Nikon is visibly just better.


Indeed it does. Sony for reasons best known to themselves define "Fine"
on that camera as roughly IJG ~90 or Photoshop Level ~9/12. This does
result in noticeable first generation losses in the cameras JPEG output.
They are custom tables neither matching scaled canonical JPEG or
Photoshops based on a quick look see at the header of a sample image.

Anything at IJG >95 is very hard to see JPEG artefacts on unless you
have the right sort of subject and know what to look for and where.

I don't much like EVF there is always some lag. The only time it is
unavoidable is when you are imaging in non-visible band radiation.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> : The supposedly superiority of optical viewfinders to the latest EVF is a
> : myth, based on nothing but aesthetics to some. More and more, you see
> : people outlining why modern, high resolution, large EVF's are the better
> : choice for most shooters.
> : The two main strong points are:
> : 1. The ability to instantly magnify an image for critical focusing. You
> : simply cannot focus as critically with an optical viewfinder and this is
> : now more important than ever thanks to camera pixel counts.
> : 2. The ability to use electronic "gain" to illuminate subjects in lighting
> : too dim to support a clear image in an optical viewfinder. The EVF will
> : "light up" even very dim scenes so they are clear enough to compose and
> : focus in. If you use slower lenses, this is even more important.
>
> And the two main weak points are:
> 1. It takes a very fast processor to refresh an EVF fast enough to be
> indistinguishable from an optical VF.


even the fastest processor cannot overcome the time it takes to
capture, process and display the image. it might get really close to
where it won't matter most of the time, but it can't ever be
indistinguishable.

> 2. Such a processor requires a lot of power and therefore places a heavy load
> on the camera's battery.


mips/watt is always increasing.

> : There are still some problems with some implementations of them, namely,
> : smearing of colours during panning (apparently, still a problem with some).
> : But it won't be long before we see optical viewfinders producing larger
> : images than even the best old pro SLR's.
>
> I think that depends on your definition of the word "long".


'never'.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, J. Clarke
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > it's not a myth. evf will *always* be worse than optical. there is no
> > > getting around the laws of physics.
> > >
> > > the differences will get smaller and smaller and evf will be 'almost as
> > > good' or 'doesn't matter in most situations', but it will never match
> > > optical, ever. it cannot.

> >
> > Agree completely.
> >
> > Try following a moving subject while shooting continuous with an evf.
> > It goes black between frames and you lose your tracking.

>
> This is an engineering issue. Video cameras almost all have EVFs and
> they do not have that particular problem.


yes they do, it's just not as noticeable because video cameras are
substantially lower resolution and videographers don't really care
anyway.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <MSPDu.22056$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't much like EVF there is always some lag. The only time it is
> unavoidable is when you are imaging in non-visible band radiation.


that's about the only situation where evf would be better than optical,
when you can't see what you want to photograph. it's also an edge case.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > there will *always* be a latency for the sensor to receive the image,
> > be converted to digital, processed by the electronics and sent to the
> > display.

>
> And how long do you think it takes the brain to recognise and process the
> image you see, then there's persistance of vision which the eye has so that
> too delays images.


the delay of the human eye can't be avoided.

adding another delay for the evf is the issue.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, ray carter
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > The supposedly superiority of optical viewfinders to the latest EVF is a
> > myth, based on nothing but aesthetics to some. More and more, you see
> > people outlining why modern, high resolution, large EVF's are the better
> > choice for most shooters.
> > The two main strong points are:
> > 1. The ability to instantly magnify an image for critical focusing.
> > You simply cannot focus as critically with an optical viewfinder and
> > this is now more important than ever thanks to camera pixel counts.
> > 2. The ability to use electronic "gain" to illuminate subjects in
> > lighting too dim to support a clear image in an optical viewfinder. The
> > EVF will "light up" even very dim scenes so they are clear enough to
> > compose and focus in. If you use slower lenses, this is even more
> > important.
> >
> > There are still some problems with some implementations of them, namely,
> > smearing of colours during panning (apparently, still a problem with
> > some). But it won't be long before we see optical viewfinders producing
> > larger images than even the best old pro SLR's.

>
> Neither is 'better' - that's a nonsensical statement. One will be
> 'better' for one person, the other for some other person. It is about
> suitability and adequacy.


nope.

evf will *always* be inferior until someone figures out a way around
the laws of physics.

some people may not care about the differences, but that's not the same
thing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
On 22/01/2014 17:52, nospam wrote:
> In article <MSPDu.22056$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I don't much like EVF there is always some lag. The only time it is
>> unavoidable is when you are imaging in non-visible band radiation.

>
> that's about the only situation where evf would be better than optical,
> when you can't see what you want to photograph. it's also an edge case.


The other situation when EVF wins is where the optical viewfinder is not
a through the lens type and you do macrophotography. The parallax error
close up on most viewfinder cameras was incredibly annoying.

I still prefer to have an optical viewfinder but some of the more recent
cameras do have almost acceptable LCD live view (but it tends to eat the
battery and can be invisible in strong direct sunlight).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
In article <dKTDu.13$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> I don't much like EVF there is always some lag. The only time it is
> >> unavoidable is when you are imaging in non-visible band radiation.

> >
> > that's about the only situation where evf would be better than optical,
> > when you can't see what you want to photograph. it's also an edge case.

>
> The other situation when EVF wins is where the optical viewfinder is not
> a through the lens type and you do macrophotography. The parallax error
> close up on most viewfinder cameras was incredibly annoying.


the benefit there is you're getting ttl when you didn't have it before.

evf is a necessary tradeoff to do that, even if it's not particularly
good.

> I still prefer to have an optical viewfinder but some of the more recent
> cameras do have almost acceptable LCD live view (but it tends to eat the
> battery and can be invisible in strong direct sunlight).


they're pretty good and quite useful, but optical will always trump it,
at least until someone gets around the laws of physics.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-22-2014
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:38:35 AM UTC-5, David Taylor wrote:
> On 20/01/2014 22:20, RichA wrote:
>
> > The supposedly superiority of optical viewfinders to the latest EVF is a myth, based on nothing but aesthetics to some. More and more, you see people outlining why modern, high resolution, large EVF's are the better choice for most shooters.

>
> > The two main strong points are:

>
> > 1. The ability to instantly magnify an image for critical focusing. You simply cannot focus as critically with an optical viewfinder and this isnow more important than ever thanks to camera pixel counts.

>
> > 2. The ability to use electronic "gain" to illuminate subjects in lighting too dim to support a clear image in an optical viewfinder. The EVF will "light up" even very dim scenes so they are clear enough to compose and focus in. If you use slower lenses, this is even more important.

>
> >

>
> > There are still some problems with some implementations of them, namely, smearing of colours during panning (apparently, still a problem with some). But it won't be long before we see optical viewfinders producing largerimages than even the best old pro SLR's.

>
>
>
> I spent yesterday using an EVF, had no need for either low-light
>
> boosting or critical focussing, and I would /very/ much have preferred
>
> to have an optical finder.


Which camera?

 
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
Reichman on EVF's and the future of optical viewfinders RichA Digital Photography 36 03-05-2011 02:45 PM
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