Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Not everybody has the latest and greatest pro-model cameras. The battery issue is real for some.

I consider being able to see the subject without any electronic interpretation from the camera maker an advantage. When you use the EVF in a mirrorless camera you typically see a simulation of the JPEG the camera software will generate. I consider that at least an annoyance if not a disadvantage.

gwilliams6

I understand, but EVFs even in the lower priced models have greatly advanced to a point where they rival the best OVFs.

And at least for Sony, ALL of their lower priced fullframe models and most of their lower priced APS-C models ALL take the exact same bigger, longer-lasting battery. No battery worries for buyers at all price levels with Sony. I cant speak for Fuji, Nikon, Canon and others .

And technically you are incorrect to say the EVF is showing you a simulation of a jpeg. EVF resolutions vary by camera and model, and that has nothing to do with jpeg resolution. EVF resolution is NOT tied to the jpeg resolution of your cameras. One stunning example: my Sony A7SIII has only a 12mp sensor for jpegs, raw files and video, yet has a 9.44 million dot EVF.

I studied all this extensively while earning my Master's Degree in Digital Photography, and as a longtime Professor of Photography at a state university, I have to know the physics and the facts, and teach it.

Personally for this pro of over 50 years in the business I find no advantage to the best of the OVFs anymore. I would never go back to one, ever.

Cheers and best to you.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You're missing the point. The EVF is an interpretation of the scene -- in an OVF you see the actual scene. That matters to me.

And technically I didn't say that did I? I said, "...in a mirrorless camera you typically see a simulation of the JPEG the camera software will generate." And what I said is technically correct.

My concern has nothing to do with resolution. I consider it an advantage to see the scene I'm photographing without also having to see the interpretation of that scene in terms of tone response and color produced by the camera maker and displayed in the EVF.

gwilliams6

I see the live scene I am shooting with my EVF, not some other scene, LOL.

Use the best EVFs and you will find there is no advantage to using an OVF. DSLR OVFs have shutter blackouts where you see nothing of your scene when that mirror has to flip up and down, but my EVFs are blackout-free, even at high fps, so I dont miss seeing anything and that is critical to getting the exact shot.

Actually in terms of tone response or colors, the EVFs can show how your color balance settings are going to effect your image and what any filters will do to the final color balance, BEFORE you shoot. OVFs cant do that.

Hey you are free to prefer OVFs, but for millions of buyers and users around the world, EVFs are preferred, with all their advantages. I will never go back to ANY OVF, even if you paid me too. LOL .

There were rumors once that Pentax was working on a combo OVF/EVF DSLR model, but that never came about. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65259798

And since this thread is about landscape shooting, you know that the EVFs rule for that.

Cheers and best to you.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Bill_de Loc: US

Thanks all for the interesting comments. It was nice to see friendly discussions even with differences of opinions.



---

gwilliams6

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You see a camera software interpretation of that scene -- you say so yourself below.

I do use the best EVFs and what I originally said remains unchanged; I'd rather see the scene I'm photographing without the camera software interpretation -- an OVF gives you that.

No, EVFs show you how camera settings for color balance, filters, tone curve, exposure etc. are going to effect the camera created JPEG. That's not my image and not an image I'm interested in seeing. If anything it's in the way, as I said an annoyance, while I'm working on my image.

I did say, "I wouldn't trade the EVF exposure aids to go back to an optical finder." I use mirrorless cameras, but one function of OVFs that I'd still rather have is an unadulterated clean view of the scene I'm photographing. Seems you still haven't understood that.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Let me check outside to make sure hell hasn’t frozen over

gwilliams6

I totally understand you, but in my vast experience of over five decades of using OVFs and today's EVFs, making millions of photos, shooting in all situations , and of all subjects around the world, IMHO you are making way too much of your so-called "unadulterated clean view of the scene". Today your so called "unadulterated clean view of the scene" has no real place in practical terms, and has no place in any quantifiable or measurable photographic terms. Just a fact.

It is just your mind's perception that you think it is superior to a 9.44 million dot ,240 fps refresh rate EVF. It really isn't and most reviewers and testers agree with me on this.

As I said before, you are free to feel that way and favor your OVFs. There is plenty of room for us all, LOL

End of discussion. Let's leave it at that and move on.

Cheers and best to you.

User ID

Not really. The idea of precision 1 pixel stepping, between 4 exposures, is semi obsolete. Random stepping using normal hand tremors can be sorted out into high rez results and avoids needing a tripod. You need to update your lecture. IIRC its a Pentax patent if you wanna research it.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You continue to completely misunderstand. That's obvious again from what you post here.

Way too much?!! I just said I'd prefer it. What we have way too much of is your continued failure to understand what I've said.

That's BS and not a fact. We'll have a peek in a moment.

And here again is solid evidence that you're still completely missing the point. It's not about resolution and it's not about refresh rate. I never once suggested I was unhappy with EVF resolutions or refresh rates.

I don't own a camera with an OVF -- all my cameras are mirrorless.

Here's that peek I just mentioned. I was out in the garden this evening snapping photos of the irises. Below you see on the left the JPEG my camera created. My camera does a really good job of showing me in the EVF what it's JPEG will look like. (You've said that's a positive feature. It's not for me.) Now in practical terms: In order for me to have the exposure aids in the EVF function I have to allow the camera to simulate in the EVF the JPEG it will create. THEREFORE what I had to look at in the EVF is what you see on your left -- and it really sucks. That's not the photo I was taking; it's the camera's cr*ppy JPEG. To get the JPEG looking better and therefore the EVF looking better I would have to compromise the exposure for the photo I was taking. Why should I do that?

On your right is my processed image and it's a pretty fair representation of that iris and what it looked like out in the garden a couple hours ago. In practical terms, an OVF would have shown me an image much more faithful to the iris I photographed. I'd prefer that to what you see here on your left. I think the difference shown has practical implications for using the camera and in photographic terms it is certainly both measurable and quantifiable.

Bill_de Loc: US

Most cameras today allow you to set them to produce the colors you want. In other words the camera could do the processing you chose to do on the computer. I think you could probably produce the image on the right in camera, just as you could adjust the software to produce the image on the left.

---

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

To get the camera to produce the image on your right it would be necessary to reduce the exposure. One of the reasons I continue to use mirrorless cameras is, as I said previously, the live-view exposure aids in the EVF allow me to work with increased precision. I nailed the exposure -- I'm not going to compromise that to help the camera make an inferior image.

gwilliams6

What camera are you using, and what is the quality and properties of your EVF, that can make a difference. And I dont have your exact same eyesight and that can make a difference in your perceptions.

None of your arguments hold any technical relationship to my gear and how I am using it. If the experience of using OVFs is so superior to your optical perceptions and your image making , then you should ditch your mirrorless and use OVFs and be happy. No one who prefers EVFs will stop you from be happiest with OVFs.

This is my last comment on this, Feel free to have your last word and continue to discuss it with others if you like.

Cheers and best tp you.