I am Slowly..... learning to love my Electronic Viewfinder.. I think

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by ObiWon, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. I am a 'dyed in the wool' user of SLR's DSLR's and waist level viewfinders who thinks that electronic viewfinders are the work of the devil and should have been strangled at birth! But I am feeling a disturbance in the FORCE as I am finding myself magnetically attracted to the EVF on my Sony A65-shock horror!

    I am of the habit of carrying 2 cameras on assignment typically with a fast 35-70 zoom on one camera with a mid range say up to 200mm zoom on another. At the weekend the main camera needed a 55-200 zoom so I stuck a 35-70 on the A65 and set off. Classic got it all wrong and really the 35-70 was the right lens so I ended up shooting more with the A65, with the EVF.

    OK I confess that I am guilty of performing a bit of chimping in the quiet moments. ( The event was about Hot Air Balloons but the wind was a bit gusty so the experienced pilots were the only ones flying.) Hence the action was the people on the ground so the 35-70 was the best lens. I had set the camera to show me the histogram on the LCD, but forgot that I get it on the EVF too! Lightbulb Moment I was able to shoot more without taking the camera down to glance at the LCD. For shooting people as I wandered round I reckon I shot 50% more at least. Yes the image in the EVF is still not as clear as the optical viewfinder and some of the other information can get in the way, but 50% more images to choose from is significant.

    So would you think that I need some treatment? I have found I am drawn to the reviews of the Sony A99 MkII now and my fingers are itching on the credit card. Has anybody else had this experience or am I alone?

  2. I am sure there are many people who like an electronic viewfinder. I have only peeked into one camera with it and did not care for it much. I shoot film anyway so it's not a decision I will need to make.
    ObiWon likes this.
  3. Treatment, no, more experience, perhaps. Learn to use each tool in your pouch to its best advantage.

    An EVF excels at displaying useful information, which can be altered to fit your needs. An OVF is limited to cryptic symbols in the margins of the display. An EVF is vastly superior to an OVF under poor lighting conditions, and for focusing manual lenses. Since the AF detectors are embedded in the sensor itself, there is no need to "fine tune" focusing for fast or long lenses. You can preview DOF and OOF effects precisely. Since the diaphragm closes down for focusing (optional) or at least once focus lock is nearly achieved, there is no focus shift with the f/stop.

    An OVF works best for action sports, because the blackout is less, without "stop action" effects. Since the focus detectors are separate from the sensor and finder, tracking is superior. AF is further helped since the diaphragm remains wide open except at the moment of taking, Unfortunately this detracts from focusing accuracy, since most consumer lenses suffer a focus shift when stopped down. The same features which optimize the brightness of the viewfinder make it hard to focus manually with accuracy.

    Since there is no mirror, EVF cameras suffer far less shutter shake than an SLR. Furthermore, the shutter can be partly or fully electronic, eliminating shutter vibrations altogether. You must use live view in an SLR to make full use of resolution much beyond about 16 MP. That done, you still must find lenses up to the task of high resolution - a rarity considering the design compromises needed to maintain 2" of back focus.
  4. I shot 50% more at least.

    Yes, but were the pictures any better?

    Ed: You must use live view in an SLR to make full use of resolution much beyond about 16 MP.

    Well that's a new one!

    I am lukewarm about EVFs myself. I have no problem with them, but do not regard them as a universal panacea. They are certainly a pain when shooting at full speed.
  5. Hey Ed are you related to my old mentor when I did my apprenticeship? He always used to tell me I did not take enough photographs and explore the task enough.

    As to lenses my experience is with Minolta/Konica Minolta/Sony since really about '85. I have a lot, some would say too much, of the old expensive Minolta glass that goes back to the 9000 and 7000 35mm film and many modern lenses can't seem to keep up with them. I have been toying with the idea of moving to "Canicon" to stick with the OVF but now I am thinking about staying Sony which means the SLT range, hence the A65 as a cheaper intro to test the theory, it was that or a Nikon D7000.

    I delved into Olympus as a small portable travel DSLR but have not moved to their mirror-less range, but the Evolt and 4/3rds lenses are great, but then I would need to trade them. (Anybody else got the suspicion that somebody is on a money making scheme here?) But thanks for your input
  6. On the basis that I was shooting people at a live event and got more pictures then better is a coin that flips both ways ;) So yes I got more usable shots the client decides if they are better and as of now they are happy to use a few of them so did I get or miss a shot? Who knows

  7. I'm making an educated guess about "16 MP", but it's consistent with my analysis of the effect of camera shake and other factors on resolution. In order to make an objective judgement of image quality, you have to look at the pixel level. If you follow the rule, shutter speed should be 1/FL, the uncertainty in that rule results in the equivalent of 6 MP resolution. The same holds true if the focus is at the limits of the conventional DOF range.

    In a practical sense, if the image is good enough for your client, it is good enough. That works until the client sees something better. Ken Rockwell maintains that sharpness is not important as long as the subject and composition is strong. Perhaps, but that is a subjective judgement as fragile as a smile from your client. If you don't think sharpness is important, you haven't seen many magazine ads. The art directors would probably disagree with Rockwell in that regard.

    Even with live view (100% of the time with a mirrorless ILC), vibration-free shutter and a heavy tripod, it's really hard to resolve details only one pixel wide in the image. focus is critical, and the DOF is razor-thin at the pixel level in a 40-50 MP sensor. CA, astigmatism and field curvature must be near zero, and diffraction rules at any aperture smaller than f/8. Image stabilization must be off, else it drifts enough to spoil the "1 pixel" goal.

    What is one pixel wide? Spider silk at 25' or a well-exposed star image in the center of field would be examples.
  8. I got a Pany 4/3 GX7 as the first EV camera I've ever used, and I thought it was great, very clear and easy to use, I was surprised at the lack of adjustment to it needed. Of course there were some situations where it hiccuped, but never kept me from getting pictures. Now I'm using a Fuji X-Pro2 and even though it has an optical viewfinder, I find I really like the EVF. Its very clear and bright and no lag that I've ever noticed. Whats especially nice is that it is WYSWYG. I tend to set the meter on the smallest spot, single pt. and when setting exposure I just move the spot to where I see the frame exposed the way I want it, than lock exposure with the AEL button, compose, focus either manually or auto and shoot. Its really fast actually. I turn off the LCD on the back and just look through the viewfinder which saves the battery Anyways, I like it:)
  9. Sony A series was thought to be dead until Sony introduced the A99. Great camera, but I still think the system is probably dead, as most Sony attention is on the FE/E mount these days, because these are the ones that sell.
  10. I have both. An OVF on a 7DII that I shoot swim meets with and an EVF on an M5 that I shoot most everything else. I have done direct comparons between the two.. IMO the OVF works better in bright light that the EVF. I have tested them side by side in bright light. The EVF allows me to carry a light quality camera and does work better in dim light I guess. I have tried two different EVFs for swimming action. Not so good. One EVF was Canon the other Sony. I get a little better overall picture quality with the M5 as it gives a bit more MPs than the 7DII. Big lenses work much better on the 7DII.
  11. My Fuji XE1 EVF excellent for taking sloths portraits , for chipmunks portraits I prefer Canon DSLR.
  12. [​IMG]
    Excellent focus tracking. Fuji XE-1.
    Uhooru likes this.

Share This Page