Grokking mirrorless

[orsetto]

OVFs can't show colour, desaturation, or exposure. They can't warn you of lost highlights either. OVFs are fine, though, and with film cameras we have no choice but to love them for what they are. But I reject outright the notion that progress in digital cameras should be halted.

 

Who here is suggesting "progress should be halted"? I know you're passionate, and given to hyperbole (as am I ;)), but people really need to stop being so defensive and absolutist on the OVF vs EVF topic. After awhile either position begins to sound ridiculous if promoted to the exclusion of the other.

 

Yes, in all likelihood the OVF will be gone from all new cameras within the next decade (whether photographers like it or not). But the driving force behind it won't be "progress" so much as mfr business considerations. Eventually the mfr EVF cost will drop to below OVF (at the moment it isn't really less expensive, despite widespread assumption), performance during high FPS will be tolerable to sports/wildlife pros, and the AF accuracy advantages with next-gen hi-res sensors and glass will force OVF off the market. Camera sales numbers won't subsidize a specialized OVF Nikon D6 or Canon 1 Dx for too much longer: the lower volume will drive prices to unrealistic levels.

 

That doesn't mean OVF does not have its place and value now, or that it won't be missed by many once its truly gone. For all its mechanical and focus drawbacks, it offers one thing that is extremely difficult to replicate with an EVF: OVF isn't an LCD interpretation of the scene, but the actual scene. Perhaps this means absolutely nothing to you, or you value the advantages of EVF over OVF: that is perfectly fine. But quite a few photographers now and into the future can and will have an almost genetic abhorrence for composing thru EVF at eye level. Much as the "soap opera effect" of interpolating high framerate HDTVs is very popular with the masses, but strikes some of us as nauseating, disorienting and headache-inducing (because its a distorted temporal misrepresentation of the "actual scene" when the source is cinema film instead of video).

 

A camera EVF isn't quite as bad as that, but the analogy somewhat applies: some photographers resent not being able to directly view their subject without it first being re-interpreted by the camera electronics, and an LCD screen (no matter how refined) viewed thru an eyepiece will always give itself away in some manner thats disturbing to those who are sensitive to such things. Many do not notice such subtleties at all, and take to EVF instantly. Others adapt from necessity or because they want the features of an EVF. And there will be a final wave of foot draggers who will hang on to their DSLRs for as long as possible: those aren't luddites trying to halt digital progress, they just like the tools they like.

 

At least there will always be film cameras (if not film), and perhaps digital Leica RFs, to provide an OVF vacation when EVF seems tiresome. :)

Edited January 31, 2020 by orsetto

[rodeo_joe1]

some photographers resent not being able to directly view their subject without it first being re-interpreted by the camera electronics, and an LCD screen

Barring a sight disability, there's always the option of keeping both eyes open.

 

This tip was given to me years ago, and in an event or similar situation, the 'other' eye gives you peripheral vision that warns you of people walking into frame etc. I believe it's equally applicable to EVF and OVF use.

 

I also believe that the 'artificiality' attributed to EVFs is being greatly exaggerated. After all, any 2 dimensional representation of 3 (4... 5?) dimensional reality is never going to look totally life-like. How realistic is a charcoal drawing, for example? Yet most people wouldn't dismiss it as art, and the artist has to use considerable interpretative skill to translate the subject into particles of carbon rubbed into the texture of paper. Us photographers have it relatively easy seeing the subject already in 2 dimensions on a GG or transmitted from a sensor.

[orsetto]

Its just a very subjective feeling, rodeo_joe: logic doesn't enter into it. Most people can adapt to anything without pause, others can adapt but don't love it, and some are never quite comfortable. The artwork analogy doesn't quite fit: a charcoal drawing is an end product, created directly on the final media from the artists mind. Photography in its initial stage generally involves framing something that already exists in the world thru a finder device, which later becomes interpreted via film or sensor to a screen or print. With numerous opportunities for conventional additional artistic modifications to be made in between, up to and including complete deconstruction that makes the photo look like a charcoal drawing.

 

Depending what I'm shooting (and what I'm shooting with), I can go either way. EVF kills for manual focus with digital, under optimal circumstances mirrorless/EVF will nail AF far more accurately, the camera can be quieter, and of course EVF can see in the dark. Despite these great working advantages, I emotionally dislike the experience of composing with EVF: it puts me off. It always feels like theres a curtain between me and my subject, and I'm ever-aware that I'm looking at a tiny LCD. Subconsciously, I have the disconcerting impression that if I take the camera from my eye the person or tree or animal will vanish like an illusion. Most of all, not for one second can I get lost in composing without knowing I'm holding a camera, that the camera is digital, and a different species from my Nikon F2 or Mamiya TLR or 'blad.

 

Of course I know much of that reaction stems from age: at 57, I've spent decades with OVF film cameras (and it was quite some time before I could afford a digital camera that came close to replicating that handling and format experience for "serious" work). So I'll always have OVF as my subconscious yardstick, no matter how good EVF gets. That doesn't mean I can't use an LCD to compose: I've shot thousands of great travel pics with my little 3 MP Nikon Coolpix 3500 pocket cam since 2002 (which has a barely decipherable rear postage stamp LCD panel as its only finder). I use my phone camera every day and consider it one of the best inventions ever, and EVF for video shoots never bothered me at all (in fact I'm often a little nostalgic for the 1.5" BW CRT viewfinder of the old Sony PortaPak reel to reel system I used to borrow as a teen).

 

But for still shoots where I'm really taking the time to create something, I prefer an OVF. Unfortunately I can't manually focus with the DSLR AF-oriented version of OVF anywhere near as well or as quickly as I can with my film camera OVFs, so I've resigned myself to accept EVF as a necessary evil for digital (half my favorite glass is MF that interchanges with my film cams). I don't view this preference as electronic vs optical: to me the difference is akin to my inability to use rangefinder cameras effectively (I love Leica and many other RFs, but can't focus them to save my life: I find composing on reflex OVF or EVF much easier and more intuitive than thru a direct range/viewfinder).

Edited February 1, 2020 by orsetto

[rodeo_joe1]

Of course I know much of that reaction stems from age: at 57, I've spent decades with OVF film cameras

I don't think it's anything to do with age. I'm 13 years older and used most types of film camera for over 40 of those years.

 

However, my first contact with a digital camera, complete with pixelly, low res, and frankly crappy EVF, was a complete revelation. It was goodbye to the demanding, fickle and occasionally disastrous mistress that was film, and no looking back.

 

If a useful camera happens to have a prism and mirror, so be it. Or if it has a ground-glass back that needs a hood or darkcloth, or if it provides only a bunch of pixels to represent the subject; so be it. It is what it is. Just get on with it!

As long as the end result is what's required, that's really all that matters.

 

However, like you I draw the line at peering through a scratchy direct-vision rangefinder window. I'm pretty sure one can be designed so that it's not like spying through a keyhole, but AFAIK, no camera designer has yet bothered to put the effort in.

[samstevens]

The photographer can concentrate on pointing and poking.

Ahh, yes, the art of photography.

Personally as to viewing DOF in the viewfinder, I don't think there is much in it, since I never can really tell the difference viewing the whole of the image with either an EVF and OVF. The only way I decide is when processing the image later.

+1

Me, too.

In fact, no SLR ever shows you what the image will actually look like.

Hopefully not. Hopefully, a good photographer is savvy and creative enough in his processing skills to realize that ... who was it, some dude named Adams that said, in like terms ... the EVF or OVF is the score (or, more likely, a preview of one) and the final photo is the performance. The preview, for me, is just a quick sketch, and nothing to get terribly exercised about.

Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science and it means as little to us as color does to a blind man.

Grokking seems perfect for Internet chatting ... :rolleyes:

[Karim Ghantous]

Hopefully not. Hopefully, a good photographer is savvy and creative enough in his processing skills to realize that ... who was it, some dude named Adams that said, in like terms ... the EVF or OVF is the score (or, more likely, a preview of one) and the final photo is the performance. The preview, for me, is just a quick sketch, and nothing to get terribly exercised about.

Well, that's one more paradigm that we don't necessarily need. In fact it meant nothing to those who shot slide film, and that goes back to the 1930s with Kodachrome I think. In fact many press photographers used slide film - it wasn't just for stock. I do find that I do need to correct images for exposure now and then, but that's only under tricky lighting, where in the past I would never have shot slide film anyway.

 

A good digital camera will give you an image that you don't need to process. What makes anyone think that processing is in any way necessary or desirable in photography? I say it's a nuisance and a time sink.

[samstevens]

What makes anyone think that processing is in any way necessary ...

I didn't say, and don't think, it's necessary.

In fact it meant nothing to those who shot slide film

I'm not shooting slide film, so that may be why it means something to me.

In fact many press photographers

I'm not a press photographer either. I imagine most press photographers don't post process their work.

I say it's a nuisance and a time sink.

I like spending time post processing my photos, bringing out subtleties, creating the finished product I want. I'm in no hurry and like what I consider an important craft aspect of the photos I make.

 

All that said, though, I take your point. There are those photographers for whom the preview is important and likely is very close to their end result. Carry on ... More grokking, please! :)

[conrad_hoffman]

My very first digital camera, all I could afford, was a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ-20. It only had an EVF, and a really bad one by any recent standard. The camera produced surprisingly good images, in fact some product photo posters I shot are still on the walls at work. Yes, posters, even though the sensor was the size of my little fingernail. But I digress. The EVF made such a bad impression on me that I rejected the whole concept until just recently.

 

A fellow I work with has one of the Sony A7s and after handling it a bit I at least considered the idea. When I added up my needs for a new camera, only mirrorless checked all the boxes. Enter the Z6. Having had it for a few months, I've taken a lot of shots that would have been impossible with my previous DX camera. The EVF is so natural I don't even notice it. Fact is, it would be really painful to go back to an OVF; the finder is that good. I can see it for sports and things where you're willing to sacrifice all that the the EVF can do, just to have speed-of-light response, but that's not the stuff I shoot.

 

Maybe we'll see a market arise for those old finders that went in the hot shoe! Even better than an SLR- the mirror never blanks it out.

[andylynn]

Well, that's one more paradigm that we don't necessarily need. In fact it meant nothing to those who shot slide film, and that goes back to the 1930s with Kodachrome I think. In fact many press photographers used slide film - it wasn't just for stock. I do find that I do need to correct images for exposure now and then, but that's only under tricky lighting, where in the past I would never have shot slide film anyway.

 

A good digital camera will give you an image that you don't need to process. What makes anyone think that processing is in any way necessary or desirable in photography? I say it's a nuisance and a time sink.

Processing is as much a part of the craft of digital photography as darkroom work is part of the craft of B&W printing.

[rodeo_joe1]

What makes anyone think that processing is in any way necessary or desirable in photography?

It's called 'interpretation' and 'creativity' Karim.

 

Sometimes, selecting the viewpoint, angle-of-view and composition just isn't enough to convey one's personal ideas or feelings about the subject. Manipulating the tone curve in B&W is a very powerful way to alter the mood of a picture, as is correcting or falsifying the colour of an image. Or the addition of subtle vignetting can focus the viewer's attention on the subject, for example.

 

Some anonymous Kodak or Fuji chemist's idea of good colour might not be one's own, and certainly might not be how one remembers, or wishes to remember, a particular scene.

 

Also, carrying a case full of filters to correct the fixed gaze of slide film to whatever light condition was never fun.

Edited February 2, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

[conrad_hoffman]

Not wanting to process seems very limiting. OTOH, with careful adjustments of the settings of a modern camera you can get passable jpgs right out of the camera. Sometimes passable is good enough for the task at hand. If you're saving a raw at the same time, you can always go back and do anything you want. Usually you can do what you need with just the jpg.

[Ed_Ingold]

I'm not a press photographer either. I imagine most press photographers don't post process their work.

Wrong! Besides selecting and cropping, newsprint has a very limited dynamic range, and your image must fit that range with proper punch. The corners may need to be darkened, because bleed to white is not allowed. In the day, each photographer took charge of his own work. Now, maybe, the photoengraving department does it. Back then, we handed them a finished print cropped to size, and that was it.

[samstevens]

Wrong!

Ya got me!!! Feeling that gotcha burn?

[conrad_hoffman]

We handed them an 8x10, which somebody else cropped with a red grease pencil to match the intended layout and the repro camera guy took it from there. Man, am I really that old?

[samstevens]

Wrong! Besides selecting and cropping, newsprint has a very limited dynamic range, and your image must fit that range with proper punch. The corners may need to be darkened, because bleed to white is not allowed. In the day, each photographer took charge of his own work. Now, maybe, the photoengraving department does it. Back then, we handed them a finished print cropped to size, and that was it.

Anyway, the point of my post which you selectively quoted was to let Karim know why I choose to post process, since he expressed curiosity about why someone would either feel the need or desire to do it. It's too bad what the Internet brings out is a rush to selectively look for a minor point to pounce on and in the process miss the forest for the iddy biddy tree.

[Karim Ghantous]

Not wanting to process seems very limiting.

Liberating. :-)

[samstevens]

Limiting to some ... liberating to others.

 

ALSO

 

It doesn't have to be a matter of choosing only one way for each person. As much as I love post processing, there are times when I find a photo does not need it, and that feels liberating. For me, the key to liberation is freeing me (and sometimes just temporarily) from a typical way that I do things. When something comes along to nudge me in a different direction from how I generally do things, I'm happy to take it and understand that it doesn't suddenly mean I'm going to do everything differently.

 

I let the image in front of me help decide what approach I'm going to take with it rather than a preconceived notion that some way is always better than another.

[rodeo_joe1]

Liberating. :)

OK. No processing.

Ever seen what a negative looks like when printed on the flat part of a 0 grade printing paper? That's 'unprocessed'.

Even worse is what a RAW digital file looks like with no software processing.

And you think slide film is unprocessed? Think again. The whole chemical procedure is geared to giving the positive a steep gamma with toe and shoulder rolloff.

 

Just because some photo-chemist or piece of software has done the processing for you, doesn't mean that the image is a true reflection of the colour or tonal variation that was in front of the camera.

[samstevens]

OK. No processing.

Ever seen what a negative looks like when printed on the flat part of a 0 grade printing paper? That's 'unprocessed'.

Even worse is what a RAW digital file looks like with no software processing.

And you think slide film is unprocessed? Think again. The whole chemical procedure is geared to giving the positive a steep gamma with toe and shoulder rolloff.

 

Just because some photo-chemist or piece of software has done the processing for you, doesn't mean that the image is a true reflection of the colour or tonal variation that was in front of the camera.

What I took Karim to mean is that he wants to post process as little as possible and finds that liberating. Is it not possible to see these things in terms of degree rather than as if there's always an on-off switch?

 

There are photos that I've done minimal post work on, others that have received the maximal treatment, and plenty that fall in between. Karim is saying his preference is to do the minimum necessary to finish up his pics. Not my way of working, but more power to Karim for having his.

[rodeo_joe1]

What I took Karim to mean is that he wants to post process as little as possible and finds that liberating.

My interpretation was that Karim wants to be deliberately provocative.

 

On reflection, 'biting' at such baiting is probably the exact response that was desired, and ignoring a better option.

[samstevens]

My interpretation was that Karim wants to be deliberately provocative.

Regardless, your answer was a reasoned one, so I wanted to provide a reasonable alternative. If Karim was just provoking, then we dealt with it well, I think. If he wasn’t, then he got two alternative trains of thought on the subject to consider.

 

I often answer for a wider audience than just one guy, and that’s what I took you to be doing. That way, the dialogue stays bigger than any one person and, if a provocateur is involved, we’ve gone beyond that. Sometimes, simply taking something at face value and building constructively on it is a really good route.

[Robin Smith]

My interpretation was that Karim wants to be deliberately provocative.

 

You get it at last. Karim is prone to have black and white views on things that most of the time make little sense in my opinion. Leica is best camera, mirrorless only is any good, no processing and so it goes. I am not sure whether he really believes all the guff he posts. I suppose it does stimulate debate which I guess is something; otherwise Photonet would be even deader than it is already.

[samstevens]

I suppose it does stimulate debate which I guess is something; otherwise Photonet would be even deader than it is already.

+1 Good point.

 

Something else to consider, both if we care about PN losing life and we care about a perceived lack of authenticity in posting, is to counteract it by starting interesting and genuine threads of our own.

[Karim Ghantous]

Leica is best camera, mirrorless only is any good, no processing and so it goes.

1. Not always. The X1 was terrible. For me, Leicas are the most desirable, and Leica is the #1 camera brand. Buy what your budget allows, and try new things often.

 

2. Correct - for digital. When the last DSLR rolls off the production line, you can remember this post.

 

3. Wherever possible I shoot 'slides' instead of 'negatives'. Most people do - why would you do otherwise?

 

If it weren't for progress and killing bad ideas, we wouldn't have iPods, iPhones, GUIs, iPads, digital cameras, roll film, bayonet mounts, zoom lenses, IBIS, the Internet, blockchains, dead silent shutters, low cost:quality ratio, 8K cinema cameras smaller than a Hasselblad, etc.

[samstevens]

Correct - for digital... If it weren't for progress and killing bad ideas, we wouldn't have ...

I often find the most dogmatic and categorical opinions show an actual lack of confidence in those opinions or a lack of unbiased knowledge on what the opinion is about ... or both.