Optical Viewfinder (OVF) vs Electronic View Finder (EVF). Which is better? (Page 2): So, an OVF is better for BIF? I'm sure there has to be a method, to satisfactory use those great...

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

PHRubin wrote:

Ditto! Each has its advantages and shortcommings.

EVF is better in low light, EVF is WYSIWYG as far as depth of field, exposure, area of coverage and can have more info displayed. You can focus manually and know it doesn't need correction.

OVF has no lag, better for BIF etc., but EVFs have improved.

So, an OVF is better for BIF? I'm sure there has to be a method, to satisfactory use those great Sony telephoto E-mount full frame lenses for BIF.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

tdekany wrote:

Based on your post, you haven’t seen a mirrorless camera in the last few years. Unless of course you mean a P&S camera.

I don't have the latest and greatest, Sony's with EVF A37 and A58, and older, Nikons with OVF, latest being a D7100 and older, and I have looked through recent ones at local big box stores. Both have their place. As I said, I prefer OVF, but I like EVF too, and my Sony's are EVF & Translucent Mirror, and I will no doubt purchase a true mirrorless someday. I am lucky enough to have very fine eyesight, and I guess I just prefer the optical look. For me, nothing is cast in stone, and I'm open to EVF, by all means. I'm not hung up on either though, just a preference.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Linda From Maine wrote:

Are you concerned with lag time? There is no issue!

The below were shot with Olympus EM10 M4/3 camera and M. Zuiko 75-300 mm lens. Live-time exposure, ultra-clear EVF.

Linda, those are wonderful photo examples, and your work just gets better and better, you have attained "Nature Photo Queen" status in my book!!!! I admire your work.

I do want to look at the Oly and Pany gear, when time and money allow (You and Bill Burkholder have me convinced).

On the other hand - That said, how does showing a downloaded pic help with showing how great an EVF is to look through? Maybe a pic looking through the EVF would help, might be tough to do though, LOL, I don't know how one would show either view accurately, EVF or OVF, w/o actually having them side by side to "eyeball" look through.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

olemikey wrote:

Linda, those are wonderful photo examples, and you... (show quote)

Thank you Mikey. No doubt one of the techie regulars can find a way to show a comparison of the two. My pics were to make the point I have no issue with lag time that was mentioned first by blurryeyed. And because I think more people in main forum should put their pictures where their mouths are

CO

I rented the new Nikon Z6 for two weeks recently and did comparisons with my D500 DSLR. Nikon did a great job with the EVF on the Z6 but some things still bother me. When panning, you can see that the refresh rate is not fast enough. The image is still jittery when panning. It's a 3.6 million dot EVF but scenery further away looks grainy. Objects closer to the camera look sharp and highly detailed but further back things start looking grainy.

I can see the advantages of mirrorless since the viewfinder is WYSIWYG. I still want to see what's in those shadow areas though. An EVF might render the shadow area very dark or black. With the OVF, you'll see more details in the shadows.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Linda From Maine wrote:

Thank you Mikey. No doubt one of the techie regulars can find a way to show a comparison of the two. My pics were to make the point I have no issue with lag time that was mentioned first by blurryeyed. And because I think more people in main forum should put their pictures where their mouths are

All very good points and no argument.

I don't know how to do it - an EVF versus OVF visual comparison without actually having two comparable cameras in hand, and looking through them.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

mas24 wrote:

I don't own a mirrorless camera. My Nikon DSLR has an optical viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. I have read on this forum, that some don't like the EVF. Especially, if you're accustomed to the OVF. Is one really better than the other?

The answer is yes. Viewfinders are more of a personal thing. I like my EVF because it shows me exactly what I shot, no blackouts by a mirror, and the ability to see the shot when an optical viewfinder can't. That doesn't make it necessarily better, just different.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

mas24 wrote:

I know someone who owns a Sony a6000. Next time I see him, I will request to see his viewfinder. He took it on vacation to the UK a couple of years or so ago. He took some great photos with it, taking two lenses. He wants to upgrade to the a6500. The comments so far have been interesting.

There are much better evfs than the old 6000.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Cdouthitt wrote:

There are much better evfs than the old 6000.

That's good to know. I guess I'll visit a photo shop and take a look at Sony's full frame a7r series. If they have one to look at. Or Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm mirrorless cameras.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

mas24 wrote:

I don't own a mirrorless camera. My Nikon DSLR has an optical viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. I have read on this forum, that some don't like the EVF. Especially, if you're accustomed to the OVF. Is one really better than the other?

EVF can be far superior because “what you see is what you get” and you often have far more choices on what is displayed. The one on my Z6 is awesome.

The downsides are a brief startup time and battery drain.

Older ones were not as good as the current generation and many of the complainers haven’t tried the new ones. Ditto for touch screens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

IDguy wrote:

EVF can be far superior because “what you see is what you get” and you have often have far more choices on what is displayed. The one on my Z6 is awesome.

The downsides are a brief startup time and battery drain.

Older ones were not as good as the current generation and many of the complainsrs haven’t tried the new ones. Ditto for touch screens.

Nothing ever changes, including opinions ...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

mas24 wrote:

That's good to know. I guess I'll visit a photo shop and take a look at Sony's full frame a7r series. If they have one to look at. Or Panasonic, Olympus, Fujifilm mirrorless cameras.

Sony a9, a7riii, a6500
Panasonic g9
Fuji xt3
Olympus em1ii

Those are the ones you need to look at. I’ve heard great things about the xt3 ovf

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

CO wrote:

I still want to see what's in those shadow areas though. An EVF might render the shadow area very dark or black. With the OVF, you'll see more details in the shadows.

In my experience, the exact opposite is true. Because my GH4 has a feature called i.Dynamic, not only is the shadow range in the photo amplified, but you see it in the viewfinder the way it will be rendered.

EVFs are particularly useful for video production. I have a level. I have audio peak level meters. I can view the scene and pull focus manually by dragging my finger across the dark OLED touch screen. I have a live histogram, in monochrome or RGB graphs. I have full status information.

Another benefit is that I can use my iPhone 7 Plus as a viewfinder and remotely control the camera, via WiFi. This makes it possible to do all sorts of things that were iffy with the dSLRs and SLRs I used to use.

User ID

mas24 wrote:

.........
I have read on this forum, that some don't like
the EVF. Especially, if you're accustomed to the
OVF. Is one really better than the other?

ABSOLUTELY. FOR SURE. DAMNT RIGHT !

OF COURSE ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER ! !
Why else would we have a choice. If they were
both equally loved, one of them would disappear.

FWIW, I know which is better, so I use it. But as
to which one, ain't nobodyz bidnez but my own.
Curses upon you for asking. You shall live out
the remainder of your days as a troll.

[End of rational discussion, right there.]

.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

CO wrote:

I rented the new Nikon Z6 for two weeks recently a... (show quote)

CO, did they include a manual with it? Refresh rates usually can be changed to meet ones needs. My original E-M5 was set to 30fps which I went in and changed to the maximum of 60fps. This mimicked an OVF with very little difference. Supposedly the higher frame rate takes more battery power, but it was of such a small difference I never detected it battery wise. Just carried a spare and threw it in when the first ran out. Never needed more than the two fully charged batteries for a day's worth of shooting. Now I have the E-M1mrII. It comes with the frame rate set to 120fps and can be set to a slower speed to save battery drain. But I am not sure why anyone would do that. My two batteries last even longer with my E-M1mrII than with the old E-M5. Plus, with time lag of 0.05 seconds for the E-M1mrII (same as for the EOS-1DX), there is so little difference to me that it is not a consideration.