EVF - is 115,000 enough? Or is 205,000-230,000 really what is needed?

I'm curious about EVF's for superzoom cameras. One I'm looking
at has 115,000 pixels for the EVF, and I'm curious how well that
is working for most folks. Is it sufficient for clear focus at
specific points, or does that EVF resolution make it difficult to
achieve the precise focus that one may want?

Is a higher resolution on the EVF obviously preferred? Or is
115,000 sufficient for most folks?

Thanks

 

It's pretty poor. Unfortunately it's a common standard. You have to get used to
working within its limitations. You can sometimes use the pixilated image to
your advantage, in a sort of "reverse micro-prism" effect. Just as you would
watch on an SLR focusing screen for the micro-prism to stop scintillating and
disappear when the object was in-focus. In a low-resolution EVF you can watch
for "scintillation" on sharp contrasting bits and edges to start happening
letting you know you are near as possible to a good focus. This of course is
even easier if you use any digital focusing aids included, like the central
portion of the image being magnified to help with manual focusing. Then the
scintillation showing up in this magnified image makes the focus even more
accurate. Out of focus areas don't cause this scintillation because the pixels
slowly change as the subject moves. When it's in sharp focus the adjoining
pixels brighten and darken rapidly to match the sharper edges and higher
contrasts.

A low-resolution EVF and smaller sensor sizes are the ONLY things preventing
single-lens, long-zoom cameras from vastly surpassing dSLRs in performance and
functionality. They already surpass dSLRs in every other way, such as real-time
preview showing the exact image you are going to get, movies, longer
shutter/performance life-span, faster flash-sync speeds, etc.

Manufacturers purposely keep the EVF resolution low on these cameras just to
encourage people to buy into their more profitable and self-destructive dSLR
lines of cameras (which require more frequent replacement, repair, and
overpriced accessory lenses), just because they insist on using last century's
light-path technology.

I've since learned to use a low-res EVF to my advantage by watching for this
reverse micro-prism effect. When sharp edges start to scintillate I know I'm in
focus. I'd still prefer a much higher resolution EVF though. There's nothing to
prevent them from incorporating one, other than their own greed.

 

When I first got my Canon S1 I was *immediately* disappointed by the 115k
EVF. If I hadn't bought it mail order I might have handed it back. I did
love the EVF live preview as a creative tool, but hated the resolution
and the lack of easy focus confirmation.

The 200k-ish EVF on my Olympus SP-550 is much better, and confirms my
decision not to buy the Canon S2/3 (and now 5) purely because of the EVF
resolution. Sadly the rest of the 550 has failed to live up to my
initial expectations (ok, apart from the 28mm wide end... I love that).
But that's cameras for you.

Andrew McP

 

I found that in looking through one (canon s31s and a couple of other
brands as well) and then comparing with a higher res model from Kodak that
the difference was striking - I strongly suggest you do a 'side by side'
at a camera store, best buy, whatever. For me the difference was enough
just looking through the viewfinder that I was not willing to find out if
I could live with the lower res versions. I bought a Kodak P850 (refurb)
from Kodak's online store for $250 and I'm quite pleased with the
purchase. If you decide to go Kodak, I'd suggest the P series as it has
quite a few more features than the Z series - saves raw, tiff, jpeg - has
full manual mode . . .

 

You forgot about shutter lag, which puts DSLR's way ahead. Sensor size
and noiseless long exposure ability also. And start-up time, bokeh,
faster AF. I could go on.

 

Yes, you could go on, but you'd be wrong on all counts. There are ways around
the shallow DOF caused by small sensor sizes and being able to create nice bokeh
effects. (I won't bother sharing, you'd only want an argument on how its done.)
Shutter lag? What shutter lag? My new P&S is every bit as fast if not faster
than any dSLR that has to wait for last century's mirror to quit flapping around
making all that noise. Long exposures? Who needs them with a camera that can
shoot in the pitch dark at fast shutter speeds using IR light only.

You dSLR folk sure are insecure about needing to hold onto why you wasted that
much money, aren't you. Your problem, not mine.

 

Paul,

You can manage with "115K", but the VGA resolution EVF in the Minolta A2
(advertised as "900,000 pixels") was much nearer to something which
provided a comfortable view. I find that with auto-focus, and the much
larger depth-of-field of the small-sensor cameras, I don't tend to use the
EVF for precision focussing (and remember that DSLRs have long abandoned
the focussing aids like split-image and micro-prism used in earlier film
SLRs).

I am unsure why other manufacturers (or even Minolta themselves) did not
follow-up on the VGA resolution EVF. Cost and sensor readout bandwidth
may come into it.

Cheers,
David

 

Ah! I was just starting my search for a P&S with short shutter lag, to
replace an old Canon PS. What P&S do you have? Is it EVF only, or optical
too?
Ta.

 

Yeah, use an SLR.

Which one is that? I know of SLRs that take 10 pictures per second.

What a stupid statement.

Look in the mirror.

 

Seriously? This is just dumb. And I don't say that too often. This isn't
even a worthy troll.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say that this was actually one of the more
hilariously stupid things I've ever seen.

 

Most P&S *these days* have very short delays from half-press to
full-press. The problem is, they still focus slowly (contrast-detection
autofocus driven off the sensor is much slower than phase-detection
autofocus with a dedicated specialized sensor). If something holds
still, you can half-press and then wait for the right moment. But this
isn't very effective, I find, for children, cats, dogs, or sports.

dpreview measures the various delays, check their reviews. My Fuji F11
has a *very* short half-press to full-ress delay, but I find the slow
focus annoying (and there's no manual focus as an alternative).

 

There's a good chart here:
http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm?sort=ShutterLag

How long does it take your F11 to take five photos? I see it's got a
shutter lag of 0.01 second according to dpreview.

 

I though of explaining how IR doesn't illuminate moonlit landscapes,
or how it doesn't actually provide for color photographs in dim light,
but I've found that stupid people aren't always amenable to logic.

 

I was thinking of a couple of long-exposures I've done to blur motion
(waves, auto lights, etc.) but I suppose you can just get a blur effect
by moving your P&S while it's taking the picture.

 

Seems to me that we're getting considerably off track here.

 

Yep, the .01 is the half-press to full-press delay. And it's not a
problem, that's faster than most DSLRS.

Five photos, though, gets into the fact that there's no buffer. I think
it's about 2.5 seconds, if I can find continuous exposure mode.

 

No, the .01 is great. Any faster and it would be taking the photo before
you pressed the button.

One of the many things I love about the D200 is the continuous shooting
mode, especially when I'm doing kid or dog pix. Take ten, and one will
have the right expression.

 

I found that in looking through one (canon s31s and a couple

Are there any super zoom cameras (8x zoom or higher) with image
stabilization and standard AA batteries and a hot shoe with EVF's
that are 230,000 or so?

The Canon S5 IS sounds nice, though it would be good if the
sensor was larger and the EVF had 230,000 or what not.

I'm just not sure what brands have all that. Don't know if I can
find all I'm looking for in a single camera.

Heck, I still wish the S3 / S5 had an optical viewfinder even!

Thanks

 

Paul,

Thanks.

I just know that for me, when I looked into the EVF of the S3 IS,
I felt it was too grainy and hard to get a crisp focus with.
Back in the day the old PENTAX 35mm had one of those split image
things that worked incredibly well, along with a light meter
internal to the viewfinder. It rocked.