Nikon Z - your experiences with the viewfinder?

[Ed_Ingold]

There is no practical way to display information in the viewfinder of a DSLR, apart from grid lines and focusing areas. With an EVF, a lot of useful information can be displayed, or easily turned off if you don't want it there. You can also keep the EVF clean while displaying information on the back screen. As they say, "Better to have it and not need it ..."

[Andrew Garrard]

There is no practical way to display information in the viewfinder of a DSLR, apart from grid lines and focusing areas. With an EVF, a lot of useful information can be displayed, or easily turned off if you don't want it there. You can also keep the EVF clean while displaying information on the back screen. As they say, "Better to have it and not need it ..."

 

I've always thought that Nikon could provide more information even on the periphery of a viewfinder. For example, if the exposure line were an RGB row, it could be (optionally!) used to provide a live histogram, with a brightness corresponding to the number of meter regions falling in this range. Some of Nikon's UI features lag the advances in technology (putting the ISO button where you can reach it being a prime example) - a histogram meter readout made no sense with a 5-segment meter, but they could have been doing this since the F5. You could also colour code the AF regions - I've argued for a front/back focus indicator, although I doubt Nikon still care enough about manual focus to do it. Some of my proposed hacks require new hardware, others don't. And, again, I'll do my document of doom the moment I stop having people demanding things of my every free moment. Sigh.

 

I'd still like to think that a hybrid finder could be done if anyone really wanted to - Fuji's version was relatively simplistic, but there are things you could do mess with the prism. Of course, it would be complex and expensive, and I suspect the corporate will to do it compared with just advancing EVF technology is quite limited.

[Andrew Garrard]

There is no practical way to display information in the viewfinder of a DSLR, apart from grid lines and focusing areas. With an EVF, a lot of useful information can be displayed, or easily turned off if you don't want it there. You can also keep the EVF clean while displaying information on the back screen. As they say, "Better to have it and not need it ..."

 

Aside from my weird suggestions, I'll point out that Nikon have been putting in LCD segments for the digital level in the image area of relatively recent cameras. I'm not averse to quite a range of information, so long as you can sometimes turn it off. If we could all trust eye focus sufficiently, we might be able to avoid even having the AF point shown...

[ilkka_nissila]

a histogram meter readout made no sense with a 5-segment meter, but they could have been doing this since the F5

 

Well, the matrix meter looks at the focusing screen through a hole in the prism and its readings probably do not accurately reflect what the image captured by the main sensor would see. So it would not be that reliable.

 

I'd still like to think that a hybrid finder could be done if anyone really wanted to -

 

I am sure it could be done but it probably would not be good. I think a clean optical or electronic viewfinder is preferable to a hybrid that includes a low quality EVF and low quality OVF.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm sure a viewfinder meter is inherently compromised, but on the other hand it's presumably good enough to be making metering decisions... I'd take it over nothing. I assume the meter has a wider dynamic range than the sensor in any case - and you can always look at the image after capture, or use live view, if the difference matters; presumably the Z series aren't using the whole sensor for metering either (they'd have to use a subset for readout speed reasons, so you might expect some accuracy issues).

 

I'm reasonably confident that you could make a hybrid finder that's just as good an optical finder as a current optical finder. What I have more doubts about is whether it would be small or affordable. Personally I don't care much about the prism size (hence I'd like it bulked up with a wireless flash trigger rather than taking the flash off, as the D850 did), and once you're already spending D850 money I'm not sure how much it would add... but I can understand that it probably won't happen.

[rodeo_joe1]

OVFs can be equally as misleading as EVFs.

Example: I was shooting an interior subject at a fixed 3200 ISO under artificial LED lighting the other night, using the OVF of my D7200. The TTL meter indicated an exposure of 1/500th s @ f/1.4, which I dutifully set manually on the camera.

The first shot came out well-exposed - maybe a little over - but several following shots were far too dark. Same subject, same lighting, same distance, same exposure settings. I quickly realised that lamp flicker (invisible to the eye) must be to blame, and that the high shutter speed was giving me a 'pot luck' exposure; dependent on where in the mains cycle I was catching the flickering light.

 

An EVF probably wouldn't have helped at all, unless it simulated the 1/500th second exposure time. However it might have revealed the lamp-flicker as rolling banding and given some prior warning. If not for the 'smart' feature that locks the LCD refresh time to the local mains frequency.

 

So, does an OVF give a WYSIWYG view? - Nope! But then neither does an EVF in some circumstances.

 

FWIW, I entirely agree with Ed that a projection onto a ground-glass/fresnel screen is philosophically just as far removed from 'reality' as the electronically reconstructed view seen in an EVF. And that the EVF should theoretically be far closer to the actual captured image. But in practise both the EVF and OVF have their advantages and disadvantages, which in the case of my flickering LED lighting example neither would have entirely sufficed to overcome. Sometimes chimping the actual captured image is better than either.:(

Edited May 31, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[Andrew Garrard]

I guess this is where the flicker reduction mode on recent cameras comes in (the D850 has it, IIRC Canon introduced it on the 7DII); I'm not sure what exactly it does to timing other than trying to be consistent. The D850 manual doesn't really say whether it might try to aim for the bright part of the flicker for extra light, or at the average intensity, and I'm not really sure where it lands on the movement of the shutter across the frame. To be fair, I've mostly found flicker an issue when shooting 1200fps video with a V1 (scene goes dark, scene goes light, scene goes dark, scene goes light....) and solved it by going outside, where there was almost enough light to be using the thing in the first place. A decently light flashlight that doesn't have a visible strobe works, too.

 

I generally have trouble with Nikon's metering (I swear more than in my D700 days), but I don't think flicker is the main problem.

 

The old "accurate representation of depth of field" issue is certainly there, though. If you prefer accurate focus and depth of field representation, there's always live view, if you still want to use a camera with no viewfinder lag and maximal dynamic range. I switched to Nikon with the D700 in part because I was waiting for live view to become available (if Canon had released a 5DII prototype as a product sooner I'd probably have stayed Eos, since that was the big thing lacking in the original 5D for me) - I wanted it partly for tilt-shift purposes. Currently, having the live view view in the viewfinder doesn't feel like an enormous additional benefit to me (though I don't deny there are some ergonomic advantages, and an accessory loupe tends to get in the way of a touchscreen) - the big win for the Z series, other than anything the lenses can do with the new mount, is fast autofocus in live view. Thom Hogan has suggested that a D750 replacement with a Z6 sensor and phase detect live view would be a decent seller (and the Canon bodies have had the same functionality for a while); while Nikon has too much of my disposable income already to allow me to get one, he may be right.

 

I have, at tiddlywinks tournaments, had people complain about the shutter noise/mirror slap of my D850 (although I had to explain that I couldn't "turn it off"). Live view silent shooting is better, but then I might get rolling shutter in fully silent mode, and the autofocus speed is a problem. I've actually taken my D810 to a few recent events because its shutter is quieter - of course it's also slower than the D850's. A D750 update with PDoS AF would solve it, although mostly if I won a lottery.

[Ed_Ingold]

The Z's EVF has 3.8 MP, the same as a Sony A9 or A7Riii. I find that I can focus manually* without resorting to peaking (which is nearly worthless) or focus magnification (which makes it hard to compose the image). A rangefinder is arguably better, but only for lenses 50 mm or shorter, and the screen in a DSLR not nearly as precise, and only useful when the aperture is wide open.

 

Being able to see the subject in light too dim for reading is a definite plus. Being able to focus quickly and easily in that light is a godsend.

 

* Use the classical method of focusing past the best sharpness, then back by muscle memory. With focus-by-wire lenses, the best method is to turn the ring fairly briskly, bracket the focus on both sides, than back halfway by muscle memory

[ilkka_nissila]

Which is better: Nikon Z7 vs Sony a7R III

 

”However, despite the similar specifications, both EVFs are not created equal. The a7R III delivers the full resolution to the EVF in playback mode, but not when shooting, and resolution drops when shooting in burst mode. The Z7, on the other hand, maintains full resolution even while shooting, and uses a relatively complex optical design with aspheric elements and a fluorine coating”

[mike_halliwell]

If used in crop-mode, does the EVF show just the area captured ie DX or full FX with DX 'boxed' or the outer bit greyed out?

 

..or can you decide?

[BeBu Lamar]

I really don't care for quiet cameras. If the noise bothers people then I should not take pictures any way. If the people at the tennis match were bothered by the camera shutter sound wouldn't they be bothered by the fact that you running around taking pictures? Edited June 1, 2019 by BeBu Lamar

[Ed_Ingold]

I really don't care for quiet cameras. If the noise bothers people then I should not take pictures any way. If the people at the tennis match were bothered by the camera shutter sound wouldn't they be bothered by the fact that you running around taking pictures?

There's no "running around" at a tennis match, golf tournament, or classical concert. A noisy camera is still noisy if you stand still or out of sight, and highly distracting to others in those situations. Silent cameras are now required at White House pressers, and increasingly at other public events.

[Hector Javkin]

If the noise bothers people then I should not take pictures any way.

 

Many situations require both photography and silence, and it is possible to fulfill both at the same time. Before silent cameras became sufficiently capable, many sites, including film sets, required the use of enclosures (blimps) for still photography.

[mike_halliwell]

You get the feeling if there's a choice of a 'clicky' camera or a silent camera at a wedding, it's FX mirrorless every time....:)

 

... especially if you're firing a burst to try and catch a quick expression or reaction. Silent 12fps (for Z6) is handy!

[2Oceans]

I prefer quiet cameras. I know the press should be using them during conferences so that folks can hear the speaker whose voice can be obliterated by shutter noise. For wildlife I can get by fine and always did with a film camera or DSLR but I look forward to the day that I am shooting dead silent. As far as EVF vs OVF I am currently using a hybrid Fuji viewfinder on my very first mirrorless camera, a Fuji X100F. I have never expected to or actually felt for a second that what I saw with a OVF or EVF was what I was going to get. If was never that way with film. Galen Rowell talked about how color was not real. He shot saturated transparency films like ISO 50 Velvia that most of us shot at ISO 40. Velvia was described to me as surreal and we all shot the daylights out of saturated Kodak and Fuji transparency film that rendered the image like nothing we had seen before or after peering through the viewfinder. In our minds eye we knew what we were getting into and made accommodations. Digital has given us a more options and more confusion. Perhaps with digital we actually can get very close to what we see in the view finder but will it be the same when we go to print and do we want it to be that way. Even with the best editing and print set up I would say no. When I print a scene I have forced myself to move on and I am more interested in how I would like the image to look than what the scene appeared like through my eyes at what hopefully was an inspired instant of acquisition. I believe that the image in my mind at acquisition was different than anyone else’s. In this I think photography is more about finding a common ground with the folks viewing the final image than technical perfection in the form of exact duplication. My goal is to hit a home run that way. I am new to mirrorless but I like having many nonpermanent options in my OVF and EVF displays so that I can pick and choose. Street shooting at night and low angle perspectives are easier using the EVF and I will continue to appreciate as my eyes fail in dim light and my bones get older. I am hopeful that despite the apparent shutter lag inherent in mirrorless that Nikon will gravitate to something akin to the Olympus Procapture that will compensate for any delay and then some. Of course all in DX. Good hunting

[ShunCheung]

This afternoon I am going to photograph this kid's violin recital again. Last year before I got the Z6, I was using the D500 for 4K video and D5 with its silent mode for still, and you can hear the shutter clearly on the video. Other participants told me that my camera was pretty loud, even in silent mode. This year, I have been using the D850 for 4K video and the Z6 for stills. The Z6 would have been better for video too, but I only have one Z6 and its silent capture is great for music performances (not rock concerts, where it probably won't hurt to use a loud shutter).

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by ShunCheung

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, the D5 has a very loud mirror + shutter mechanism. I guess it has something to do with the speed of operation and perhaps its ruggedness as well. Many DSLRs are noticeably quieter, to the point where the sound hardly matters at all. I remember the D810 was very quiet, I sold it to get the D850 which has better AF, and it's faster ... but also, louder. I think the solution when using the D5 in a place where the sound noise is a problem is to use Qc and shoot very discriminantly; only get the shots that you need. I don't find it to be a problem when used in this way, but the D810 was still better.

 

No doubt the Z6 is great for such situations. I shoot a lot with medium telephoto lenses and the Z system has no such lenses yet. When the 85/1.8 and 70-200/2.8 come out I will take another look.

 

It may be possible to remove / filter the clicks in the video so that they are inaudible in post-processing. Another possibility / partial solution is to position the microphones in such locations that they do not pick up the still camera sound, or pick it up minimally.

[2Oceans]

I was in a sharp tail grouse blind this evening at 8:30 shooting with a D850. It's shutter is plenty noisy but did not and never has disturbed the grouse

that were there in good number, 30 or more, surprisingly late in the season. Even in Qc the shutter is quite audible. Grouse can be noisy and self absorbed with mating courtship behavior and perhaps less distracted by other noises. A friend has a large series of sequences with a fox diving into the snow for prey and the fox that has acute hearing was not distracted by the shutter of his Canon D1X. Perhaps if the fox were not preoccupied by the prey the shutter noise might have been noticed.

 

I don't photograph recitals or chamber music but if I did I would feel obligated to use a mirrorless camera with the electronic shutter engaged. I think that the current technology allows for that to eventually become the standard.

[rodeo_joe1]

One of the (real rather than perceived) advantages of a Leica was its relative silence in operation. Almost any compact or MILC digital can beat it on lack of dBAs these days. Probably on image quality as well, but we won't get into that.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that 'silence is golden' when it comes to cameras. I've been able to take candids with a little noiseless compact that I'd never have been able to take with a clunky SLR or DSLR. A rear viewing screen means you don't have to have the camera lifted to your eye for framing either. And in a concert or performance situation, it's just plain rude and embarrassing to use a camera that makes any audible noise.

 

I was actually a bit shocked at the high shutter noise made by my Sony a6000. So the little silent compacts still have a place in my kit.

[mike_halliwell]

Can the EVF be set to show either the actual brightness of the resulting shot or the amplified shot to make dim shooting easier?

[jose_angel]

Mike, not sure if I understood you correctly. Don't know the Z series, my X100F show the "actual" brightness of the resulting shot (if it can be said this way) in the EVF, but I cannot set it to a brighter view unless I increase the brightness of the viewfinder via menu settings. I can also see increased brightness overexposing the image (via exposure compensation wheel), but it should be set to the right exposure to get the shot.

In the other hand, the screen can show a small portion of the image at a higher magnification and brightness if I override the AF or use the manual focus ring. It actually "helps" to focus or to check focus under difficult conditions, but I`d say its not a perfect feature (too much noise, low resolution).

-

BTW, the "reality" of the image on either the EVF is actually cancelled when I order prints at the shop. I find really hard to get the right results, it doesn't matter how much calibrated the system is... at the end, I find printers are not calibrated to the same standards, or, as the operator told me the last time, the printer have somewhat automatic contrast detection, framing, resizing, etc. which looks to actually override everything. I am rarely getting the results I'm looking for since the digital era.

Edited June 3, 2019 by jose_angel

[mike_halliwell]

show the "actual" brightness of the resulting shot

Bit like the OK button on the back of the D850 when in LV. It either shows you a 'true' view of a result with the settings set with a +/- scale on the RHS showing just how over/underexposed the shot would be... ie. if you're +4EV it's almost completely whited out.

 

Or a normalised view showing composition but a completely false exposure guide. ie even if you're -4EV it looks just fine...:-)

 

... and yes printing is the final hurdle to get what you thought you had! Photobox here in the UK is pretty good for landscape and wildlife type stuff. I rarely shoot people (!) so I don't know how skin tones would be.

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't photograph recitals or chamber music but if I did I would feel obligated to use a mirrorless camera with the electronic shutter engaged. I think that the current technology allows for that to eventually become the standard.

 

While electronic shutter is desirable as it doesn't cause any camera shake (with EFCS, there is a chance of slight blur at the end of the exposure, though this is usually not something noticeable, I've seen it at 500mm) and it is silent (the aperture closing and autofocus can also make some sounds, so the camera doesn't become completely silent), the photographer does breathe and shoes etc. make some sounds, and the photographer's movement is also a distraction. Most cameras have a sensor read time of approximately 1/15s when the electronic shutter is used this dictates how much rolling shutter there is. If the subject is e.g. dancing, the shape may be distorted because of the rolling shutter effect. If there are flickering lights, there may be bands of uneven exposure and color in the images. These are less obvious in images shot with mechanical shutter as the shutter curtains move gradually over the sensor rows and from what I've seen the bands (if they exist) are less noticeable. I'm not sure what the mechanical equivalent to read time is but it's probably close to the flash sync speed (1/200s or 1/250s). This affects both any banding and rolling shutter distortion. While the A9's read time is around 1/150s, it can still create sharper bands than the mechanical shutter in some circumstances with LEDs and slightly more distortion. However it is just one 24MP camera and it's not clear if it can be implemented at higher resolutions and what the read time would be then. Finally the "global shutter" that would read all the data simultaneously would not have any geometrical distortion or banding but traditionally global shutter cameras have a bit less dynamic range, and are very expensive. I don't therefore know if an artifact-free fully electronic shutter is going to be seen in a consumer camera of affordable price any time soon.

 

I think the mechanical shutter of many cameras is already quiet enough so that getting a few shots of a concert should not disturb the experience of the audience too much. The shots can be timed so that they are not taken during the quieter moments of the music, but when the music is quite loud. Also, sometimes rehearsals can be used to get the shots that are needed. Cameras such as the Fuji X100 series have a very quiet leaf shutter; although they are not common in "consumer-priced" ILCs (there are some, such as the Hasselblad X1D and Leica S which have lenses equipped with central shutters that make a much less noticeable sound). Anyway, I'm not saying that silent shutter should not be used where it can be used, and where the mechanical shutter may cause too much disturbance, but sometimes the electronic shutter may not lead to the desired result. Otherwise they would be the only shutter available.

 

With regards to the use of the rear LCD screen, I think that creates more of a disturbance than use of the viewfinder since in a dark indoor or night location, the bright LCD screens create quite a distraction. I would personally not consider this acceptable, and would prefer to use the viewfinder instead, where possible, to minimize the glowing light.

Edited June 3, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

[BeBu Lamar]

I really don't care for a quiet camera but I do like the electronic shutter as I think it's more reliable and accurate. I hope that they solve all the problems associated with the electronic shutter so they can make a serious camera without the mechanical shutter.

[chulster]

Some would always disagree regardless.

 

That's true. I disagree with all of you. The tunnel viewfinder of my Kodak Pocket Instamatic has never been equalled as far as I'm concerned.