More people realizing EVF's are better than optical viewfinders

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Of course one can be better. You can not focus as accurately with an optical viewfinder as with a modern EVF, it's not possible.
    RichA, Jan 22, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Guest Guest

    there's this new thing called autofocus, where the camera focuses for
    Guest, Jan 22, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    And it provides reasonably accurate results, unless the photographer
    decides to create a sharp point, at a place other than where the camera
    decides. I frequently use manual focus for macro and landscape work.
    PeterN, Jan 23, 2014
  4. RichA

    David Taylor Guest

    Sony HX200V - required for light weight and extreme zoom (810 mm
    David Taylor, Jan 23, 2014
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Nah! The technology knows better than you.
    PeterN, Jan 23, 2014
  6. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    No, but it can be reduced or rather it's effect can be reduced.
    That's why you can blink faster than you can 'see'
    And why time appears to slow down during an accident.
    The images take a shorter route to the brain by not going through a type of recognition process.
    Also the corners of our eyes are faster reacting whicyh is why some can see lights flickering out of teh corner of their eye.

    yes there's no doubt about the delay but that doesn't automatically make EVFs better or worse as it depends on the use it's put to.
    Whisky-dave, Jan 23, 2014
  7. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    I found that it's easier just to focus the damned thing than to diddle
    around trying to get the active autofocus spot onto the thing I needed
    to have in focus. And that a split-image screen made manual focusing a
    lot easier but threw the autofocus off a bit.
    J. Clarke, Jan 23, 2014
  8. RichA

    Guest Guest

    doesn't matter.
    it can.

    it may not matter in many use cases and most people may not care
    anyway, but it's *always* going to be there. there is *no* way around
    that's another issue, and no display can replace the original scene.
    Guest, Jan 23, 2014
  9. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it provides more accurate results in most cases, particularly if the
    subject is moving.

    it's not possible for a human to focus on a moving subject while
    maintaining accurate focus as it moves.

    there will always be edge cases where a human can do better but those
    are few and getting fewer.
    Guest, Jan 23, 2014
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it usually does and it keeps getting better at it, such as with face
    Guest, Jan 23, 2014
  11. RichA

    Guest Guest

    there are cameras with optical viewfinders that weigh *less* than ones
    with evf, but if someone is choosing based on weight then quality is
    not a priority and lag isn't a concern. it's still going to have a lag,
    they just don't care.
    Guest, Jan 23, 2014
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    who said anything about moving subjects.
    Use of manual focus for macro and landscape is not exactly an edge case.
    PeterN, Jan 24, 2014
  13. RichA

    Guest Guest

    moving subjects is the most common case.
    macro is definitely an edge case. in fact, it requires a special
    purpose lens, called a macro lens. there are also extension tubes,
    bellows, etc. that can be used.

    landscape is nearly always focus at infinity and generally using a wide
    angle where depth of field takes care of any focusing errors. there are
    exceptions (there always are) but those are edge cases.

    the reality is that autofocus will focus better and faster than humans
    do in the vast majority of cases. not all, but nobody said it was
    perfect. just another one of your usual straw men.
    Guest, Jan 24, 2014
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Oh! thanks for that information. Please define precisely what you mean
    by edge case.

    Nearly always??
    Please define the set from which you draw your conclusion, then
    eliminate the "I've been there," memorial snapshot.

    Usually faster, assuming one has a fast focusing lens.
    Your response tells us that you do not do serious landscape, or macro work.
    I suppose you also call setting a hyperfocal distance an edge case.
    PeterN, Jan 24, 2014
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

    that proves my point.

    reversing a lens = special purpose. it turns it into a macro lens.

    you also have to find a reversing ring, which are not that easy to
    find. they're not a commonly stocked item in a typical camera store.
    it's a special order item.

    reversing rings fall into the etc. category, as do close-up lenses.
    of course i have, and that proves my point again. depth of field takes
    care of it.
    never said that.

    you really have been spending too much time with tony.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    I note that you never answered my question. Could it be that the answer
    would prove your statement inaccurate?
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Nah! Use of hyperfocal distance is an edge case. Besides, most lenses
    don't have DOf scales. <// end sarcastic tag>
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Good point. Which means you do not need a really good image, since the camera does the focusing for you. All you need to do is compose, which can bedone easily enough on a 10 year old camera with a 234k display. Optical viewfinders are preferred by some because of the "look" of the view, nothingmore.
    RichA, Jan 25, 2014
  19. RichA

    Guest Guest

    same reason they make extension tubes and bellows and close-up lenses
    and stacking rings. one solution does not fit all problems.
    where did i say that?
    many ways.

    face recognition is one way, where it focuses on people. that's now
    been enhanced to detect eyes and focus on eyes on a face.

    this is exactly what someone would do manually, just not as fast or as

    there are other situations where it can't tell.

    nothing is perfect, and just because you can identify an edge case
    where it won't work doesn't make it completely useless.
    you haven't been spending enough time with new technology.

    you're stuck in the old ways of manual everything.
    Guest, Jan 25, 2014
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/25/2014 2:01 PM, nospam wrote:
    Which brings up that autofocus is of no use with bellows. As I
    originally said, I and oany other experienced macro photographers do not
    rely on autofocus.

    Why are you changing the subject.

    For that image, it is.
    PeterN, Jan 25, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.