More people realizing EVF's are better than optical viewfinders

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jan 20, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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 peopleoutlining 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 nowmore important than ever thanks to camera pixel counts.
    2. The ability to use electronic "gain" to illuminate subjects in lightingtoo 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.
    RichA, Jan 20, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > The supposedly superiority of optical viewfinders to the latest EVF is a
    > myth, based on nothing but aesthetics to some.


    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.

    > 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.


    focus peaking does that, and with less hassle. autofocus can work in
    many situations too. let the camera do the work so you can concentrate
    on composition.

    > 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.


    the eye can do that too, and autofocus works quite well in low light
    (the better ones anyway).

    > 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.


    but not as good.
    nospam, Jan 20, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:46:55 PM UTC-5, nospam wrote:


    Cameras exceeded human vision (at same visualization distance, 50mm lens equivalent) at the 5 megapixel point, and so will EVF's exceed optical at that point.

    Focus peaking is a last-ditch, fall-back because it simply is not accurate enough to match magnified manual focusing.
    RichA, Jan 21, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Cameras exceeded human vision (at same visualization distance, 50mm lens
    > equivalent) at the 5 megapixel point, and so will EVF's exceed optical at
    > that point.


    an evf can't *ever* exceed optical.

    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.

    that delay will get shorter and shorter to where it won't matter *most*
    of the time (at least when the light is good), but it will *never* be
    zero. ever. when the light it not so good, it won't be as short.

    > Focus peaking is a last-ditch, fall-back because it simply is not accurate
    > enough to match magnified manual focusing.


    obviously you've never actually used it.
    nospam, Jan 21, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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 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.


    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.

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

    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jan 21, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/21/2014 1:38 AM, 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 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.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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?


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jan 21, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, 21 January 2014 01:30:05 UTC, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Cameras exceeded human vision (at same visualization distance, 50mm lens

    >
    > > equivalent) at the 5 megapixel point, and so will EVF's exceed optical at

    >
    > > that point.

    >
    >
    >
    > an evf can't *ever* exceed optical.


    That doesn't make much sense without defining what you mean by exceed.
    There's many optical electronic devices from microscopes top telescops that can exceed the human eye's abilities.


    > 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.


    > that delay will get shorter and shorter to where it won't matter *most*
    > of the time (at least when the light is good),


    and what happens when the light is low, you wait until the following day because you can't see anything that is some delay in taking a photo isn't it.

    > but it will *never* be
    > zero. ever. when the light it not so good, it won't be as short.


    What about the sensor that will also experince the delay even if you exclude shutter lag.The exposure and focusing still need to be calculated and it all has to be done to capture an image.
    Whisky-dave, Jan 21, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    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.
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Jan 21, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:20:12 -0800 (PST), 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 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.
    2. Such a processor requires a lot of power and therefore places a heavy load
    on the camera's battery.

    : 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".
    --
    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 22, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    M-M Guest

    In article <200120141846557227%>, nospam
    <> 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.

    --
    m-m
    photo gallery:
    http://mhmyers.com
    M-M, Jan 22, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <220120140146053910%>,
    says...
    >
    > In article <200120141846557227%>, nospam
    > <> 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.
    J. Clarke, Jan 22, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    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
    Martin Brown, Jan 22, 2014
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> 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'.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J. Clarke
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <MSPDu.22056$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.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> 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.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, ray carter
    <> 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.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 22/01/2014 17:52, nospam wrote:
    > In article <MSPDu.22056$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
    Martin Brown, Jan 22, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <dKTDu.13$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.
    nospam, Jan 22, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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?
    RichA, Jan 22, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colin Brace

    P&S optical viewfinders

    Colin Brace, Apr 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    721
    Colin Brace
    Apr 3, 2006
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    826
    Doug McDonald
    Aug 20, 2007
  3. zalek
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,338
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    Feb 6, 2008
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,447
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 5, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    82
    RichA
    Feb 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page